2016 community survey - oberon council · oberon council community survey 2016 page 6 when asked...

Community Survey 2016

Prepared For Oberon Council

By

IRIS Research Ltd

January 2016

I n s i g h t f o r

B u s i n e s s & G o v e r n m e n t

Oberon Council Community Survey 2016 page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 5

2 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 10

2.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 10

2.2 STUDY OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................... 10

2.3 ATTITUDE MEASUREMENT .................................................................................................................. 11

2.4 BENCHMARK DATA ........................................................................................................................... 12

SURVEY RESULTS .......................................................................................................... 13

3 COUNCIL SERVICES AND FACILITIES .......................................................................... 14

3.1 IMPORTANCE - SERVICES .................................................................................................................... 15

3.2 SATISFACTION - SERVICES ................................................................................................................... 16

3.3 IMPORTANCE – FACILITIES .................................................................................................................. 17

3.4 SATISFACTION – FACILITIES ................................................................................................................. 18

3.5 BENCHMARKS AGAINST POOL OF REGIONAL COUNCILS ............................................................................... 19

............................................................................................................................................................. 19

4 PRIORITISING SERVICES AND FACILITIES ................................................................... 20

4.1 QUADRANT ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................... 20

4.2 GAP ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................ 23

4.3 PRIORITISATION OF SERVICES AND FACILITIES ............................................................................................ 25

5 OVERAL SATISFACTION WITH COUNCIL PERFORMANCE............................................. 26

5.1 MAIN REASON FOR FEELING THAT WAY ................................................................................................. 27

6 WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR KERBSIDE RECYCLING ...................................................... 29

7 SEALED ROADS ....................................................................................................... 30


7.1 CONDITION .................................................................................................................................... 30

7.2 ACCEPTABLE STANDARD OF MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................. 30

7.3 WILLINGNESS FOR COUNCIL TO REALLOCATE FUNDS ................................................................................... 31

7.4 COUNCIL PERFORMANCE IN MAINTAINING LOCAL SEALED ROADS ................................................................... 31

8 UNSEALED ROADS ................................................................................................... 33

8.1 CONDITION .................................................................................................................................... 33

8.2 ACCEPTABLE STANDARD OF MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................. 33

8.3 WILLINGNESS FOR COUNCIL TO REALLOCATE FUNDS ................................................................................... 34

8.4 COUNCIL PERFORMANCE IN MAINTAINING LOCAL UNSEALED ROADS ............................................................... 34

9 COUNCIL PERFORMANCE ......................................................................................... 36

9.1 CONTACT WITH COUNCIL ................................................................................................................... 36

9.2 NO CONTACT WITH COUNCIL – STATEMENTS ........................................................................................... 37

9.3 NO CONTACT WITH COUNCIL – SATISFACTION .......................................................................................... 38

9.4 CONTACT WITH COUNCIL – STATEMENTS ................................................................................................ 39

9.5 CONTACT WITH COUNCIL – LEVEL OF SERVICE........................................................................................... 41

9.6 CONTACT WITH COUNCIL – SATISFACTION WITH PERFORMANCE .................................................................... 41

10 COUNCILLOR’S PERFORMANCE ............................................................................. 43

10.1 IMPRESSIONS OF COUNCILLORS ............................................................................................................ 43

10.2 SATISFACTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF COUNCILLORS ........................................................................... 44

11 COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................. 46

11.1 MAIN SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT COUNCIL ................................................................................... 46

11.2 PREFERRED SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT COUNCIL ............................................................................. 47

12 CHALLENGE TO MERGER PROPOSAL ...................................................................... 48

12.1 CONTINUING CHALLENGE TO MERGER PROPOSAL ..................................................................................... 48

APPENDIX 1- ANOVA TABLES ......................................................................................... 50

APPENDIX 2 – SURVEY METHODOLOGY .......................................................................... 52


SURVEY RESPONSE ..................................................................................................................................... 53

SURVEY ACCURACY ..................................................................................................................................... 55

APPENDIX 3 – VERBATIM RESPONSES............................................................................. 56


1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Oberon Council provides a range of different services and facilities for residents. The

residents of the area have been surveyed with the main objective being to obtain insight

about the performance of these services and the facilities. This provides an opportunity to

identify the improvement areas for council to consider for its future strategic planning. In this

research, the individual services are evaluated by their perceived importance and the

respondent’s satisfaction levels. High performing services and facilities and improvement

areas are discussed accordingly.

Oberon Council Community Survey was conducted between 12 December and 14 December

2016. 405 completed responses were collected through telephone (CATI) interviews. The data

is weighted to provide a representative sample of the region in terms of demographic profile

(gender and age) based on data from the 2011 census. The questionnaire was designed to

obtain evaluations for services and facilities individually. In the questionnaire six services and

nine facilities were evaluated by respondents.

One of the most important indicators that provide an overview of Council’s performance is

‘The Overall Satisfaction’ with Council as an organisation. In this survey, 63% felt Council's

performance was good, 27% thought it was ok, while 10% provided a poor rating. Older

residents (those aged 60+ years) as well as females were more satisfied with Council’s overall

performance compared to other age groups.

Residents rated the seven council services tested as being of ‘Medium’ level importance with

mean scores between 3.34 (Community technology centre) and 3.92 (Visitors information

centre). This was in sharp contrast to the nine facilities that were included with all rated as

being of ‘High’ level importance with mean score ranging from 3.99 (Community centre) up to

a very high 4.71 for sealed roads.


When asked about their satisfaction with the seven services, ‘Visitor information centre’

(4.24) and ‘Library’ (4.13) were given ‘High’ level satisfaction ratings with ‘Processing of

development applications’ given a ‘Low’ satisfaction mean score rating of 2.90. Amongst the

nine facilities rated, five recorded ‘High’ level satisfaction mean score ratings: ‘Cemeteries’

(4.14), ‘Waste depot’ (4.07), ‘Sports fields’ (4.00), ‘Parks’ (3.97) and ‘Community Centre’

(3.82).

For the sixteen services and facilities looked at it was possible to benchmark nine of them. Of

these nine services/facilities for which benchmarks exist, Oberon Council is at or above eight

of the benchmarks against the pool of comparable councils. Oberon Council is statistically

significantly higher than the benchmarks for ‘Public toilets’ (69/53), ‘Community centre’

(75/67), ‘Parks’ (79/70) and ‘Sports fields’ (78/71) and statistically lower than the benchmark

for ‘Processing of development applications’ (51/59).

When quadrant analysis was run on the importance and satisfaction results for the sixteen

services/facilities examined, three, ‘Sealed roads’, ‘Services and facilities for youth’ and

‘Footpaths’ were highlighted as being in need of attention. Gap analysis identified ‘Sealed

roads’, ‘Services and facilities for youth’, ‘Processing of development applications’, ‘Bridges’

and ‘Waste depot’ as being potentionally in need of attention. If a service or facility is

identified by both quadrant and gap analysis then it is confirmation that the residents view

that service/facility as being in need of attention. Thus ‘Sealed roads’ and ‘Services and

facilities for youth’ are confirmed as priorities for attention.

Three facilities have been identified as high performing by residents (High importance, high

satisfaction and lower than average gap between importance and satisfaction). These are

‘Parks’, ‘Cemeteries’ and ‘Sporting fields’.


When asked about their willingness to pay for a kerbside recycling service, half of the

respondents (51.0%) indicated that they would not be prepared to pay, one in three (33.9%)

indicated that they would be willing to pay for the service, with the remainder (15.2%)

undecided.

When residents were asked about the maintenance of sealed roads in the Oberon LGA, half of

the residents surveyed (50.6%) indicated that they felt the maintenance condition was

acceptable. Four in ten residents (40.7%) indicated that they felt that an acceptable standard

of sealed road maintenance was ‘A Sealed road with the potholes repaired’ while nine in

twenty residents (45.3%) considered that ‘A sealed road with smooth tar and no evidence of

potholes’ was the acceptable standard. When asked if they felt that Council should reallocate

funds from other areas to bring the sealed roads up to their preferred standard, two in three

respondents (66.1%) agreed. When asked to rate Council’s current performance in

maintaining local sealed roads, half of the respondents (48.4%) indicated that Council was

meeting or exceeding their expectations, with two in five (38.2%) feeling that Council was

delivering sealed road maintenance at a level slightly below their expectations.

When residents were asked about the maintenance of unsealed roads in the Oberon LGA, half

of the residents surveyed (49.4%) indicated that they felt the maintenance condition of

unsealed roads in the Oberon LGA was acceptable, with one in three (35.1%) disagreeing.

Seven in ten residents (71.1%) indicated that they felt an acceptable standard of unsealed

road maintenance was ‘An unsealed road regularly graded’. When asked if they felt that

Council should reallocate funds from other areas to bring the unsealed roads up to their

preferred standard, three in five respondents (59.4%) agreed. When asked to rate Council’s

current performance in maintaining local unsealed roads, more than half of the respondents

(55.4%) indicated that Council was meeting or exceeding their expectations, with one in three

(33.9%) feeling that Council was delivering unsealed road maintenance at a level slightly

below their expectations.


Of those residents who had direct contact with Council in the last twelve months, four in five

(82.7%) agreed that ‘Council staff are generally courteous & helpful’, three in four (74.4%)

agreed that ‘Council staff provided clear, easy to understand advice’, three in four (73.6%)

agreed that ‘Making contact with the appropriate member of staff to deal with my enquiry

was easy’ and two in three (67.9%) agreed that ‘Council staff dealt with my needs quickly and

efficiently’. When asked to rate the level of service they received during their last interaction

with Council staff, seventeen out of twenty respondents (86.3%) indicated that staff had at

least met their needs. When asked how satisfied they were with the overall performance of

staff, three in four residents (75.1%) gave a high level satisfaction rating (4 or 5) for a ‘High’

level mean score of 3.93 out of 5. When this mean score was benchmarked against a pool of

regional Councils, satisfaction with the performance of Oberon Council staff at an index score

of 76 is statistically significantly higher than the benchmark of 68 for the pool of regional

councils.

When Councillors performance was examined, 50.7% felt they were effective at ‘representing

a broad range of community views’, 54.7% indicated that they were effective ‘at providing

leadership of the area’ and 56.1% felt that they were accessible. When asked how satisfied

they were with the performance of Councillors, slightly more than half (53.1%) expressed

their satisfaction for a ‘Medium’ level mean score of 3.57 out of 5. When benchmarked the

index score at 67 is statistically significantly higher than the benchmark of 63 for the pool of

regional councils.

When resident usage and preferences for different sources of information about Council were

examined, slightly more than half of the respondents (56.5%) indicated that they receive

information about Council from the local newspaper. The community newsletter was

mentioned by 46.4% and online by 24.8%. When asked how they would prefer to receive

their information about Council, two in three opted for the community newsletter (66.1%) or

the local newspaper (66.0%).


Finally, residents were asked about their support for Council continuing the court challenge to

the proposed merger with Bathurst Regional Council. Two in three residents (64.6%)

supported Council continuing with the challenge. Of those that supported continuing the

challenge, 20.7% cited ‘Council functions well as is’ as the reason with 15% citing ‘Prefer to

stand alone’ and 13.5% ‘Smaller Council Better/More representative/Independent’. Of those

that were against continuing the challenge, 54.5% mentioned ‘Cost too high’ and 18.4% ‘Will

lose the challenge anyway’.


2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 BACKGROUND

IRIS Research was commissioned by Oberon Council to conduct a survey seeking feedback

from its residents about the services and facilities that Council provides.

2.2 STUDY OBJECTIVES

The broad objectives for the survey were to:

• Measure the importance of and satisfaction with services and facilities provided by

Council;

• To enable benchmarking of performance with other Councils;

• Assist Council by identifying those services/facilities most in need of attention;

• Identify key issues and preferred maintenance standards for local roads;

• Evaluate the consumption of and satisfaction with Council’s communications;

• Gauge community support for Council continuing the challenge to the proposed

Council merger through the courts.


2.3 ATTITUDE MEASUREMENT

In the first section of the survey, a series of 165 Council services and facilities were read out

to respondents. For each, respondents were asked to give both an importance and

satisfaction rating. Results from these ratings form the basis of much of the analysis in this

report. The importance and satisfaction rating scales used in the survey are shown below.

Importance scale Satisfaction scale

1 = Not at all important 1 = Not at all satisfied

2 … 2 …

3 … 3 …

4 … 4 …

5 = Very important 5 = Very satisfied

For all rating scales, those respondents who could not provide a rating, either because the

question did not apply to them or they had no opinion, were entered as a ‘Can’t say’ or a

rating of 6. Rating scale results have generally been presented in two basic forms. Firstly, the

results have been presented in terms of the proportion (%) of respondents giving a particular

rating for a specific service or facility. These results are presented in collapsed category

tables, where proportions have been assigned to one of the following categories:

Table 2.3.1: Collapsed rating scores

Can’t say

Low

importance

/

satisfaction

Medium

importance /

satisfaction

High

importance /

satisfaction

Rating score given 6 1 & 2 3 4 & 5

Secondly, the numeric values recorded for each attribute have been converted into an overall

mean score out of five. To derive the mean score for an attribute, all respondents’ answers

are 'averaged' to produce an overall rating that conveniently expresses the result of scale

items in a single numeric figure. This makes data interpretation considerably easier when


comparing multiple services and facilities. The mean score excludes those respondents who

could not give a valid rating (i.e. 'Can't Say').

Given that IRIS undertakes many residents’ surveys such as this; we are able to benchmark

mean scores. As such, mean importance and satisfaction scores can be further classified as

being a low, medium or high score based on this experience. Table 2.3.2 highlights the mean

classifications.

Table 2.3.2: Classification of mean scores

Mean importance scores

Mean satisfaction scores

0 – 2.99 Low 0 – 2.99 Low

3.00 – 3.99 Medium 3.00 – 3.74 Medium

4.00 – 5.00 High 3.75 – 5.00 High

2.4 BENCHMARK DATA

Benchmark Index

IRIS Research has compiled data on the performance of Councils which are comparable

(Regional Councils) to Oberon Council and has included comparisons throughout this

report.

On occasions individual Councils use variations on the 5 point rating scale including 7 and 11

point scales. In order to facilitate ease of comparison the benchmark data has been

standardised to an index score out of 100.

For a service or facility to be considered significantly different to the benchmark, IRIS

recommends a differential of 4 percentage points be present between Oberon’s index result

and the comparable Council’s measure provided.


SURVEY RESULTS


3 COUNCIL SERVICES AND FACILITIES

This section presents both the importance and satisfaction levels amongst residents towards

seven key services and nine key facilities provided by Oberon Council.

Residents were asked to rate the importance of each of the seven Council services and the

nine facilities on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 ‘not at all important’ and 5 ‘very important’.

Residents were also asked about their level of satisfaction with the provision of each of

these services and facilities; this was again done on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being ‘not at all

satisfied’ and 5 ‘very satisfied’.


3.1 IMPORTANCE - SERVICES

Figure 3.1.1 presents the breakdown of the importance results and the mean importance

scores (out of 5) for each of the seven tested services.

Figure 3.1.1 Importance of Key Council Services

Key Findings:

� All seven services are rated as of ‘Medium’ importance with mean scores between 3.00

and 3.99.

� Seven in ten residents gave the ‘Visitors information centre’ (68.7%) and ‘Public toilets’

(69.3%) high importance ratings (4 or 5).


3.2 SATISFACTION - SERVICES

Figure 3.2.1 presents the breakdown of the satisfaction results and the mean satisfaction

scores (out of 5) for each of the seven tested services.

Figure 3.2.1 Satisfaction with Key Council Services

Key Findings:

� The ‘Visitors information centre’ (mean score 4.24 out of 5) and ‘Library’ (4.13) have

been given ‘High’ level satisfaction ratings with mean scores at or above 4.0.

� ‘Processing of development applications’ with a mean score of 2.90 out of 5 has been

given a ‘Low’ level satisfaction rating with a mean score below 3.0.


3.3 IMPORTANCE – FACILITIES

Figure 3.3.1 presents the breakdown of the importance results and the mean importance

scores (out of 5) for each of the nine tested facilities.

Figure 3.3.1 Importance of Key Council Facilities

Key Findings:

� All nine facilities have been rated as of ‘High’ importance with mean scores of 4.00

and above.

� Nineteen out of twenty (95.5%) residents gave ‘Sealed Roads’ a high rating (4 or 5).


3.4 SATISFACTION – FACILITIES

Figure 3.4.1 presents the breakdown of the satisfaction results and the mean satisfaction

scores (out of 5) for each of the nine tested facilities.

Figure 3.4.1 Satisfaction with Key Council Facilities

Key Findings:

� ‘Cemeteries’ (mean score 4.14 out of 5), ‘Waste depot’ (4.07), ‘Sports fields’ (4.00),

‘Parks’ (3.97) and the ‘Community Centre’ (3.82) have all achieved ‘High’ level

satisfaction ratings with mean scores at or above 3.75.

� ‘Services and facilities for youth’ (mean score 2.88) has been given a ‘Low’ level

satisfaction rating with a mean score below 3.00 with ‘Bridges’ (3.74), ‘Footpaths’

(3.65) and ‘Sealed roads’ (3.05) being given ‘Medium’ level satisfaction ratings.


3.5 BENCHMARKS AGAINST POOL OF REGIONAL COUNCILS

Key Findings:

• Of the 9 services/facilities for which benchmarks exist, Oberon Council is at or above

8 of the benchmarks for the pool of comparable councils.

• It is statistically significantly higher than the benchmarks for ‘Public toilets’ (69/53),

‘Community centre’(75/67), ‘Parks’ (79/70) and ‘Sports fields’ (78/71) and statistically

lower than the benchmark for processing of development applications (51/59).

78

71

79

82

75

52

55

51

69

71

71

70

79

67

53

54

59

53

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Sports fields

Swimming pools

Parks

Library services

Community centres

Youth services and facilities

Sealed roads

Processing of development applications

Public toilets

Regional Councils Oberon Council


4 PRIORITISING SERVICES AND FACILITIES

Given the range of services and facilities Council has to manage, it can often be a difficult task

to prioritise. The sheer number of services and facilities under management can diffuse focus

and distract attention away from the areas of critical importance to improving resident

satisfaction. This section of the report aims to identify the key drivers of resident satisfaction

via a deeper analysis of the importance and satisfaction scores presented in the previous

section.

4.1 QUADRANT ANALYSIS

Quadrant analysis is a useful way of simultaneously analysing the stated importance a service

holds for residents against their satisfaction with the provision of that service. To do this,

mean satisfaction scores are plotted against mean importance scores for each Council service

or facility. In order to form the quadrants (or opportunity matrix) that separate higher and

lower level priority services, combined mean importance and satisfaction scores were

calculated for the entire set of 16 council services and facilities. These scores were:

Importance score = 4.08 and Satisfaction score = 3.71. Thus, for example, services or facilities

with a mean importance score of less than 4.08 (i.e. a score lower than the overall mean

importance score), were classified as having relatively ‘lower’ importance. Conversely,

services or facilities with a mean score above 4.08 were classified as having relatively ‘higher’

importance. The results of the quadrant analysis are displayed in Figure 4.1.1 and Figure 4.1.2

below.


Each of the four quadrants has a specific interpretation:

1. The upper right quadrant (relatively high importance and relatively high satisfaction)

represents current council service strengths.

2. The upper left quadrant (relatively high importance but relatively lower satisfaction)

denotes services where satisfaction should be improved.

3. The lower left quadrant (relatively lower importance and relatively lower satisfaction)

represents lower priority services.

4. The lower right quadrant (relatively lower importance and relatively high satisfaction)

represents services where effort exceeds expectations.

The attributes in the upper left quadrant are all candidates for immediate attention.

Residents placed a high importance on these attributes but also reported relatively lower

satisfaction.


Figure 4.1.1 Quadrant Analysis Services

Figure 4.1.2 Quadrant Analysis Facilities

Visitors information centre

Community technology centreStreet cleaning

Public toilets

Swimming pool

Processing of development applications

Library

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0

2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.3 4.5 4.7 4.9

Bridges

Waste Depot

ParksCemeteries

Sports fields

Community centre

Sealed roads

FootpathsServices and facilities for youth

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0

2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.3 4.5 4.7 4.9

Quadrant 1

Quadrant 1 Quadrant 2


Quadrant 2


Imp

ort

an

ce >

>>

Im

po

rta

nce

>>

>

Satisfaction >>>

Satisfaction >>>


4.2 GAP ANALYSIS

Despite its usefulness, quadrant analysis is not a complete priority assessment tool. For

example, it does not explicitly identify the gaps between importance and satisfaction. It is

possible that a large gap could exist between importance and satisfaction, even though a

service or facility appeared in the ‘high importance and high satisfaction’ quadrant.

Consequently, gap analysis was used as the second component in analysing the results. Gap

measures were calculated by subtracting the mean satisfaction score from the mean

importance score for each attribute. It should be pointed out that if a respondent rated a

service or facility’s importance, but failed to provide a satisfaction rating i.e. ‘Can’t say / Don’t

know’ they were excluded from the gap analysis. Usually, the larger the gap between

importance and satisfaction, the larger the gap between Council’s performance in the

provision of a service and residents’ expectations

Gap scores are presented in Table 4.2.1. The table ranks services and facilities from highest

gaps to lowest gaps. Those services with a gap score significantly above the mean gap score

for all services (ξ=0.6149) were given top priority (i.e. a rating of 1). These are services that

should be addressed by management first as the importance of that service far outweighs the

satisfaction that residents have with its provision. Services with a gap score statistically equal

to the mean gap were given second priority (rating of 2) and services with a gap score

significantly below the mean gap were given third priority (rating of 3).


Table 4.2.1 Performance gaps for Council services and facilities – Entire LGA

Service / Facility Ave

Gap Priority

Sealed roads 1.6574 1

Services and facilities for youth 1.5470 1

Processing of development applications 1.2605 1

Bridges .7677 1

Waste depot .6721 1

Public toilets .5943 2

Footpaths .5810 2

Parks .4843 3

Community centre .4792 3

Sports fields .4778 3

Swimming pool .3877 3

Cemeteries .2924 3

Community technology centre .1538 3

Street cleaning .1122 3

Library -.0400 3

Visitors information centre -.0874 3

Key Findings:

� Quadrant analysis has identified ‘sealed roads’, ‘services and facilities for youth’ and

‘footpaths’ as services/facilities in need of attention.

� Gap analysis has identified ‘sealed roads’, ‘services and facilities for youth’, ‘processing

of development applications’, ‘bridges’ and the ‘waste depot’ as being in need of

attention.


4.3 PRIORITISATION OF SERVICES AND FACILITIES

Table 4.3.1 outlines the services and facilities that were identified as not meeting residents’

expectations across the entire LGA in either quadrant or gap analysis. Initially there were 16

services and facilities measured in this survey, however after applying both forms of analysis

the results highlighted 6. These 6 can then be filtered down to 2 facilities that Council should

focus on first. If a service or facility is highlighted in both the quadrant analysis box and the

gap analysis box, it is confirmation that this area should be given priority.

Table 4.3.1 Quadrant and Gap analysis summary –

Services / Facility Identified as a Priority by

Quadrant Analysis

Identified as a Priority by

Gap Analysis

Sealed Roads *

Services and Facilities for Youth *

Footpaths

Bridges

Waste Depot

Processing of Development Applications

*Priorities for immediate attention

Key Findings:

� Three facilities have been identified as high performing by residents (High importance,

high satisfaction and lower than average gap between importance and satisfaction.

These are ‘Parks’, ‘Cemeteries’ and ‘Sporting fields’.

� Two services/facilities ‘Sealed roads’ and‘Services and facilities for youth’ have been

identified by both quadrant and gap analysis as being priorities for immediate

attention by Council.


5 OVERAL SATISFACTION WITH COUNCIL PERFORMANCE

‘Given the answers you have just provided, how would you rate your overall satisfaction with

the performance of Oberon Council? ‘

Figure 5.1 Overall Satisfaction with Council Performance

Key Findings:

� Three in five residents (62.5%) gave Council a high satisfaction rating (4 or 5).

� Council achieved a ‘Medium’ level mean score of 3.68 out of 5. This result is right on

the cusp of a ‘High’ level rating (3.75) and is a strong result for Council.

� When asked why they gave this rating, 41% indicated it was because they were ‘Happy

with Council’, 7% said it was because Council was ‘Helpful/Responsive’ with 8%

indicating that their rating was given because ‘Roads need improvement’.

� The mean score has been converted to an index score out of 100 and the result at 71 is

statistically significantly higher than the benchmark of 66 for the pool of regional

councils.

Low (1&2)

Medium (3)

High (4&5)

Can't say

10.3%

26.6%

62.5%

.7%

%

Mean score = 3.68 out of 5

Benchmark: Oberon = 71 / Pool of Regional Councils = 66


5.1 MAIN REASON FOR FEELING THAT WAY

Figure 5.1.1 Main Reason for Feeling That Way – Word Cloud


Figure 5.1.2 Main Reason for Feeling That Way – Coded Responses

Happy with Council

Roads need improvement

Helpful/Responsive

Like living here/Looked after

More facilities/services

Maintenance needed

Good services/facilities

Staff/Admin problems

Room for improvement

Amalgamation & associated issue

More can be done

Rubbish collection / More recycling

Limited contact with Council

Lack of communication/consultation

More industry / development

Cost and delay with DAs

Miscellaneous

Not Stated

41.4%

8.3%

7.3%

5.3%

4.6%

4.3%

4.0%

3.6%

3.6%

3.0%

2.6%

2.0%

1.7%

1.7%

1.3%

1.0%

2.3%

2.0%

%


6 WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR KERBSIDE RECYCLING

‘Given Council's recent initiative in installing recycling bins in North Street and at the Oberon

landfill site, would you be prepared to pay for a kerbside recycling service?’

Figure 6.1.1 Willingness to Pay for Recycling Service

Key Findings:

� Half of the respondents (51.0%) indicated that they would not be prepared to pay for

a kerbside recycling service. One in three (33.9%) indicated that they would be willing

to pay for the service, with the remainder (15.2%) undecided.


7 SEALED ROADS

7.1 CONDITION

‘Do you consider that the current maintenance condition of sealed roads in the Oberon Local

Government Area is acceptable?

Figure 7.1.1 Maintenance Condition is Acceptable

7.2 ACCEPTABLE STANDARD OF MAINTENANCE

‘What do you consider an acceptable standard of sealed road maintenance?’

Figure 7.2.1 Acceptable Standard of Maintenance


7.3 WILLINGNESS FOR COUNCIL TO REALLOCATE FUNDS

‘Would you be willing for Council to reallocate funds from other areas to bring the sealed

roads up to your preferred standard?

Figure 7.3.1 Willingness for Council to Reallocate Funds

7.4 COUNCIL PERFORMANCE IN MAINTAINING LOCAL SEALED ROADS

‘How would you rate Council's current performance in maintaining local sealed roads overall?’

Figure 7.4.1 Rating of Council Performance


Key Findings:

� Half of the residents surveyed (50.6%) indicated that they felt the maintenance

condition of sealed roads in the Oberon LGA was acceptable with an equivalent

percentage (47.2%) disagreeing.

� Four in ten residents (40.7%) indicated that they felt that an acceptable standard of

sealed road maintenance was ‘A Sealed road with the potholes repaired’ while nine in

twenty residents (45.3%) considered that ‘A sealed road with smooth tar and no

evidence of potholes’ was the acceptable standard.

� When asked if they felt that Council should reallocate funds from other areas to bring

the sealed roads up to their preferred standard, two in three respondents (66.1%)

agreed.

� When asked to rate Council’s current performance in maintaining local sealed roads,

half of the respondents (48.4%) indicated that Council was meeting or exceeding their

expectations, with two in five (38.2%) feeling that Council was delivering sealed road

maintenance at a level slightly below their expectations.


8 UNSEALED ROADS

8.1 CONDITION

‘Do you consider that the current maintenance condition of unsealed roads in the Oberon

Local Government Area is acceptable?

Figure 8.1.1 Maintenance Condition is Adequate

8.2 ACCEPTABLE STANDARD OF MAINTENANCE

‘What do you consider an acceptable standard of unsealed road maintenance?’

Figure 8.2.1 Acceptable Standard of Maintenance


8.3 WILLINGNESS FOR COUNCIL TO REALLOCATE FUNDS

‘Would you be willing for Council to reallocate funds from other areas to bring the unsealed

roads up to your preferred standard?

Figure 8.3.1 Willingness for Council to Reallocate Funds

8.4 COUNCIL PERFORMANCE IN MAINTAINING LOCAL UNSEALED ROADS

‘How would you rate Council's current performance in maintaining local unsealed roads

overall?’

Figure 8.4.1 Rating of Council Performance

Above my expectations

Meeting my expectations

Slightly below my expectations

Significantly below my expectations

4.0%

51.4%

33.9%

10.7%

%


Key Findings:

� Half of the residents surveyed (49.4%) indicated that they felt the maintenance

condition of unsealed roads in the Oberon LGA was acceptable, with one in three

(35.1%) disagreeing and a further 15.5% unable to answer.

� Seven in ten residents (71.1%) indicated that they felt that an acceptable standard of

unsealed road maintenance was ‘An unsealed road regularly graded’

� When asked if they felt that Council should reallocate funds from other areas to bring

the unsealed roads up to their preferred standard, six in ten respondents (59.4%)

agreed.

� When asked to rate Council’s current performance in maintaining local unsealed

roads, more than half of the respondents (55.4%) indicated that Council was meeting

or exceeding their expectations, with one in three (33.9%) feeling that Council was

delivering unsealed road maintenance at a level slightly below their expectations.


9 COUNCIL PERFORMANCE

9.1 CONTACT WITH COUNCIL

‘Firstly, in the past 12 months, have you had any direct contact with Council?’

Figure 9.1.1 Contact with Council

Key Findings:

� Slightly less than half of the residents surveyed (46.6%) indicated that they had direct

contact with Council in the last twelve months.


9.2 NO CONTACT WITH COUNCIL – STATEMENTS

Statement : ‘I think that Council staff are generally courteous & helpful’

Figure 9.2.1 Agreement (n=189)

Statement: ‘Council staff generally deal with people quickly & efficiently’



9.3 NO CONTACT WITH COUNCIL – SATISFACTION

How satisfied are you with the overall performance of Council's staff?’

Figure 9.3.3 Satisfaction with Overall Performance (n=189)

Key Findings:

� Eight in ten residents (80.3%) who had not had direct contact with Council in the last

twelve months, agreed that ‘Council staff are generally courteous & helpful’.

� Two in three residents (64.7%) who had not had direct contact with Council in the last

twelve months, agreed that ‘Council staff generally deal with people quickly and

efficiently’.

� Slightly less than three quarters (72.1%) of those that had not had direct contact with

Council in the last twelve months said that they were satisfied with the overall

performance of Council staff for a ‘High’ level mean score of 4.04 out of 5.



9.4 CONTACT WITH COUNCIL – STATEMENTS

Statement 1 : ‘Making contact with the appropriate member of staff to deal with my enquiry

was easy.’


Statement 2 : They were courteous and helpful.’


Disagree (1&2)

Neutral (3)

Agree (4&5)

Can't say

9.2%

7.0%

82.7%

1.1%

%


Statement 3 : ‘They dealt with my needs quickly and efficiently.’


Statement 4 : They provided clear, easy to understand advice.’



9.5 CONTACT WITH COUNCIL – LEVEL OF SERVICE

‘Thinking about the overall quality of service provided during your last interaction with Council

staff, which of the following best describes the level of service you received:’

Figure 9.5.1 Level of Service (n=216)

9.6 CONTACT WITH COUNCIL – SATISFACTION WITH PERFORMANCE

‘How satisfied are you with the overall performance of Council’s staff:’

Figure 9.6.1 Satisfaction with Overall Performance (n=216)




Key Findings:

� Of those that had direct contact with Council in the last twelve months, four in five

(82.7%) agreed that ‘Council staff are generally courteous & helpful’.

� Of those that had direct contact with Council in the last twelve months, three in four

(74.4%) agreed that ‘Council staff provided clear, easy to understand advice’.

� Of those that had direct contact with Council in the last twelve months, three in four

(73.6%) agreed that ‘Making contact with the appropriate member of staff to deal

with my enquiry was easy’.

� Of those that had direct contact with Council in the last twelve months, two in three

(67.9%) agreed that ‘Council staff dealt with my needs quickly and efficiently’.

� When asked to rate the level of service they received during their last interaction with

Council staff, seventeen out of twenty respondents (86.3%) indicated that staff had at

least met their needs.

� When asked how satisfied they were with the overall performance of staff, three in

four residents (75.1%) gave a high level satisfaction rating (4 or 5) for a ‘High’ level

mean score of 3.93 out of 5.

� The mean score has been converted to an index score out of 100 and the result at 76

is statistically significantly higher than the benchmark of 68 for the pool of regional

councils.


10 COUNCILLOR’S PERFORMANCE

10.1 IMPRESSIONS OF COUNCILLORS

Question 1: ‘How effective are Councillors at representing a broad range of community views

fairly?’

Figure 10.1.1 Effectiveness

Question 2: ‘How effective are Councillors at providing leadership of the area?’

Figure 10.1.2 Effectiveness


Question 3: ‘How accessible are Councillors to the community?’

Figure 10.1.3 Accessibility

10.2 SATISFACTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF COUNCILLORS

‘How satisfied are you with the overall performance of Councillors?’

Figure 10.2.1 Satisfaction with Performance

Dissatisfied (1&2)

Neutral (3)

Satisfied (4&5)

Can't say

13.3%

28.2%

53.1%

5.3%

%




Key Findings:

� When asked how effective Councillors are at representing a broad range of

community views effectively, 50.7% felt they were effective (4 or 5).

� When asked how effective Councillors are at providing leadership of the area, 54.7%

indicated that they were effective (4 or 5).

� When asked how accessible Councillors are to the community, 56.1% felt that they

were accessible (4 or 5).

� When asked how satisfied they were with the performance of Councillors, slightly

more than half (53.1%) expressed their satisfaction (4 or 5) for a ‘Medium’ level mean

score of 3.57 out of 5.

� The mean score has been converted to an index score out of 100 and the result at 67

is statistically significantly higher than the benchmark of 63 for the pool of regional

councils.


11 COMMUNICATIONS

11.1 MAIN SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT COUNCIL

‘Thinking about the information that you receive in regard to Council activities, what are your

main sources of information?’

Figure 11.1.1 Main Sources of Information

*Multiple selections were allowed so totals will not add to 100%

Local newspapers

Community newsletter

Online : Council website, e-news,Facebook, twitter

Yearly rates newsletter

Contact with the CouncilAdministration Centre

Libraries and other informationcentres

Other

56.5%

46.4%

24.8%

12.8%

7.0%

2.3%

30.6%

%


11.2 PREFERRED SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT COUNCIL

‘Please tell me how you prefer to receive information about the facilities, services and events

offered by Oberon Council?’

Figure 11.2.1 Preferred Sources of Information

*Multiple selections were allowed so totals will not add to 100%

Key Findings:

• Slightly more than half of the respondents (56.5%) indicated that they receive

information about Council from the local newspaper. The community newsletter was

mentioned by 46.4% and online by 24.8%.

• When asked how they would prefer to receive their information about Council, two in

three opted for the community newsletter (66.1%) or the local newspaper (66.0%).


12 CHALLENGE TO MERGER PROPOSAL

12.1 CONTINUING CHALLENGE TO MERGER PROPOSAL

‘Now I would like to talk about the proposed merger with Bathurst Regional Council. As you

are probably aware, Council has passed a resolution to pursue all avenues to allow Council to

stand alone and not merge. Are you in favour of Council continuing the challenge in the

courts?’

Figure 12.1.1 Continuing Challenge to Proposed Merger

Key Findings:

• Two in three residents (64.6%) supported Council continuing with the challenge to

the proposed merger with Bathurst through the courts.

• Of those that supported continuing the challenge, 20.7% cited ‘Council functions well

as is’ as the reason with 15% citing ‘Prefer to stand alone’ and 13.5% ‘Smaller Council

Better/More representative/Independent’.

• Of those that were against continuing the challenge, 54.5% mentioned ‘Cost too high’

and 18.4% ‘Will lose the challenge anyway’.


Figure 12.1.2 Reasons for Supporting Challenge to Proposed Merger (n= 266)

Figure 12.1.3 Reasons for Not Supporting Challenge to Proposed Merger (n=103)

Council functions well as is

Prefer to stand alone

Smaller Council better/More Representative/Independent

Lose identity/Rural feel/Different needs

Bathurst poorly run

Services will be worse/Oberon will be forgotten

Against forced amalgamations

Funds will go to Bathurst to service their debt

In our best interests to stand alone

Prefer to stand alone if costs can be controlled

Can stop when needed subject to legal advice

Not stated

20.7%

15.0%

13.5%

11.7%

10.5%

9.8%

6.4%

4.9%

3.0%

2.3%

1.5%

.8%

%

Cost is too high

Will lose challenge anyway

Merger will be good/Should go ahead

Fresh faces in Council/More representative

Better services/facilities

Distraction from more important issues

Not Stated

54.4%

18.4%

11.7%

5.8%

2.9%

1.0%

5.8%

%

2016 community survey - oberon council · oberon council community survey 2016 page 6 when asked...

Documents