community satisfaction survey · market facts, was commissioned by the redland city council in...

Community Satisfaction Survey

REDLAND CITY COUNCIL

March 2019

Redland City Council Customer Satisfaction Survey 2019 MARKET FACTS (QLD) PTY LTD 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 2 Objectives of Survey 2 Themes of Council Responsibility 3 Structured Sample Survey 8 Briefing Material Supplied to Participants 9 Data Processing and Analysis 9 Reliability of the Findings 10

RESPONDENT PROFILE 11 OVERALL PERFORMANCE RATINGS 14

COMPARISON OF PERFORMANCE INDICES 15 ANALYSIS OF KEY POINTS 16

Areas of Lowest Performance Relative to Importance 17 Areas of Highest Performance Relative to Importance 19 Areas of Average Performance 21 Areas of Least Importance 21

EVALUATIONS OF TOTAL PERFORMANCE 22 Weighted Performance Indicators 22 Basic Services & Infrastructure 23 Community Lifestyle Services 24 Managing the City 25 Customer Service and Communications 26 Qualities of Council 27 COMMUNITY RATINGS OF COUNCIL RESPONSIBILITY AREAS (THEMES) 28

IMPORTANCE 29 Theme 1: Basic Services & Infrastructure IMPORTANCE 29 Theme 2: Community Lifestyle Services IMPORTANCE 36 Theme 3: Managing the Shire IMPORTANCE 44 Theme 4: Customer Service and Communication IMPORTANCE 48

PERFORMANCE 53 Theme 1: Basic Services & Infrastructure PERFORMANCE 54 Theme 2: Community Lifestyle Services PERFORMANCE 61 Theme 3: Managing the Shire PERFORMANCE 69 Theme 4: Customer Service and Communication PERFORMANCE 73 Theme 5: Quality of Council PERFORMANCE 77

PUBLIC OPINION QUESTIONS – KEY FINDINGS 78 Perceptions of various aspects of Redland City Council 79 Contact with Council 92 Branding 96 Community Understanding of Aboriginal Heritage 98 Council Information Provision 101 Nature of Contact with Council and Satisfaction Level 104 Disaster Management 107 Type of Information Required from Council 107 Making Payments 109 Council Events and Cultural Services 110

SUMMARY 112


INTRODUCTION

Market Facts, was commissioned by the Redland City Council in January 2019 to conduct a survey of community attitudes measuring levels of satisfaction with the services provided by Council.

This survey also included ‘supplementary questions’ (based on a survey undertaken by Council in 2016).

Objectives of Survey

The objectives are to:

1. Survey relevant categories of the members of the Redland City Council community, in order to:

(i) provide measurements of residents’ attitudes and opinions, and (ii) provide diagnostic information and analyses,

regarding the extent to which the Council’s provision of works, facilities and relevant administrative services meets the community’s perceived priorities.

2. Compare the results (as appropriate) against the most recent (July 2017) Metro Fringe LGA‘norms’ established by the LGAQ’s biennial surveys.1

3. Provide number-based detail which can be used to calculate relative priorities between the 37primary policy areas for which Council is responsible according to the “weighted averages” ofcommunity perceptions, after taking into account both existing Council Performance as well asbasic community priorities (i.e. ratings for Importance).

4. Compare ‘supplementary questions’ (where appropriate), which were based on a previoussurvey undertaken by Council in 2016.

1 There are 42 Responsibility Areas for the LGAQ standard customer satisfaction survey. A comparison with LGAQ Qld wide and Metro Fringe is provided in this report. However, it is not directly comparable as the Redland City Council customer satisfaction survey only included 37 Responsibility Areas. Hence comparison with LGAQ results are limited, to providing a general indication of comparative performance for key responsibility areas that are similar to LGAQ survey.


Themes of Council Responsibility

At the core of the benchmarking process is the evaluation by residents in the community of the broad array of council responsibilities (services and activities), divided into five Themes.

These Themes are:

Areas of Council Responsibility

THEME (1) Basic Services and Infrastructure

Function/Responsibility Examples/Clarification

Road Construction Constructing new or upgrading existing roads

Road Maintenance Repairing potholes and damaged road shoulders; street sweeping and verge mowing

Footpaths, Kerbing & Guttering Construction and maintenance of safe footpaths, kerbs and gutters

Street Lighting Funding the provision and upkeep of lights on Council streets/roads

Traffic Management Traffic planning, traffic lights, roundabouts, traffic `calming' and directional signage

Parking Facilities Establishing parking policies, parking control, provision of or assessment of requirement for on and off-street parking

Water Supply Supply of water to meet reasonable standards of Quantity (volume, pressure, continuity) and Quality (colour, odour, taste, softness)

Sewerage Provision of sewerage system with adequate standards of effluent discharge, odour control and operating efficiency

Public Transport Either providing or ensuring the provision of an adequate system of public transport

Drainage & Flood Mitigation Construction and maintenance of open and underground stormwater drains, levee banks, division channels etc

Waste Management Garbage collection and disposal, waste minimisation (recycling and composting), street bins

Community Health Inspection of restaurants/cafés/shops, mosquito/midge spraying, cemeteries

MARKET FACTS (QLD) PTY LTD 4

THEME (2) Community Lifestyle Services


Parks, Playgrounds & Public Amenities

Development and maintenance of open space areas, parks, children's play-grounds and public toilets

Environmental Controls Enforcement of regulations on air, water and noise pollution

Environmental Protection & Conservation

Tree planting, bushland acquisition, noxious weeds eradication, foreshore protection, preservation of natural areas.

Heritage Protection Preservation of historic buildings, monuments, facilities, artefacts, and Indigenous & other records

Sporting & Recreational Facilities Public swimming pools, sports-fields, land and/or support for clubs & their facilities

Cultural & Entertainment Facilities Civic centre, public halls, art gallery/museum, community arts programs, community festivals

Libraries & Other Information Access

Public library, Internet access, CD ROM's

Community Safety Safety action plans, safety audits, signage, security patrols & cameras, beach & pool lifeguards, community education & awareness programs

Community Services Programs and facilities that meet the needs of a range of stakeholder groups (such as senior citizens, young people, families, Indigenous, disabled, non-English speaking background)

Pet / Animal Control Registration, impounding of strays, control of feral animals

Shopping Centres Ensuring the provision of adequate shopping facilities to meet the needs and convenience of local residents

Community Development Working with (& supporting) community organisations and special-interest groups to develop strong, sustainable & self-reliant communities

Cycleways Adequate and safe provision of cycleways throughout the city

Redland City Council Customer Satisfaction Survey 2019


THEME (3) Managing the City


Town Planning Planning and zoning for the purposes of residential, rural, commercial, industrial, recreational, open space & public infrastructure development including urban renewal & CBD redevelopment, rules regarding land usage

Economic Development & Local Employment

Promoting/supporting increased economic activity and increased local employment opportunities, attracting investment

Development of Tourism Area promotion, tourist information facilities, visitor care programs, caravan parks, promoting/supporting additional tourism activities

Financial Management Responsible, open and accountable management of the Council's finances

Revenue Raising Establishing fair and equitable rating for residential, rural, commercial and other sectors; applying a fair and reasonable balance between income from rates and from user-pays fees and charges


THEME (4) Customer Services and Communication


Customer Service Accessible & adequate facilities for dealing with and responding to contacts from stakeholders and the general public, handling enquiries / requests / complaints

Information Services Maintaining and updating databases on Council facilities & services including rates & property information, water/sewerage/drainage networks, community services, etc

Informing the Community Keeping the community informed of Council policies, plans, programs & activities through newsletters & other means, advising of community issues to be debated

Consulting the Community Ensuring community input into Council policies, plans & programs by regularly canvassing residents’ opinions & priorities and by maintaining effective relationships with the broad range of community groups

Responding to the Community Providing feedback on community input, taking action where appropriate to implement community priorities, being accessible to all members of the community including minority groups

Providing Leadership & Advocacy

Representing local community needs & interests to other spheres of government (including government authorities) and to other outside organisations whenever relevant, supporting civic pride & local identity, promoting accountability & best practice


THEME (5) Qualities of Council


Quality and Performance of Staff

Competent, effective, efficient, get things done, accessible, courteous, helpful, believe in achieving solutions, knowledgeable


Structured Sample Survey

Random telephone calls were made to resident households throughout the City, using the Electronic White Pages. These calls identified 600 residents aged 18 years and over who indicated that they were ‘interested in discussing local government issues and expressing an opinion about them’ and who were prepared to participate in the survey.

In order to enrol the sample of 600 respondents a total of 6082 attempted and 3478 connected telephone calls were made. Quotas for the telephone survey were taken as follows:

Suburb Quotas Region and Postcode

Coastal Region

Thorneside 14 4158

Birkdale 54 4159

Erobin, Ormiston 24 4160

Wellington Point 42 4160

Cleveland, Raby Bay 62 4163

Point Halloran, Victoria Point, Victoria Point West 70 4165

Redland Bay 54 4165

TOTAL 320

Inland Region

Capalaba 60 4157

Sheldon 10 4157

Alexandra Hills, Burwood Heights 56 4161

Thornlands 50 4164

Mount Cotton 24 4165

TOTAL 200

Stradbroke Island

Amity Point, Dunwich, Point Lookout, NSI 30 4183

TOTAL 30

Southern Moreton Bay Islands

Coochiemudlo Island 10 4184

Karragarra Island, Lamb Island, Macleay Island, Russell Island

40 4184

TOTAL 50

SAMPLE TOTAL 600

The total sample size was n=600


Briefing Material Supplied to Participants

After despatching preliminary prompt material to those people who had agreed to participate, follow-up telephone interviews were conducted by appointment. The material sent included the explanation of the ‘Themes of Council Responsibility’ set out on the previous pages, the method of rating for Importance and Performance, and also described the methods of rating.

Data Processing and Analysis

The data has not been weighted. As a matter of course the data, after input, was cleaned and logic-checked to ensure error-free detailed tables. All percentages in the tabular output have been rounded to one decimal point. Significance tests have been applied to identify those differences in response among the various subgroups which were highly unlikely to have occurred due to chance.

All responses were coded and computer-analysed by the standard breaks of:

Gender

Age Group

Location – Coastal, Inland, Stradbroke Island, Southern Moreton Bay Islands

Participation quotas were set for all Redlands Coast suburbs to ensure the overall sample was representative of the city. There was however intentional slight over-sampling from NSI and SMBI to ensure results from these areas were statistically significant.

Overall sample size allows statistically robust comparison of 4 city regions ie Coastal, Inland, SMBI and NSI. The following postcode level report will provide a guide only to community sentiment at a postcode level, as sample sizes by postcode may not always be sufficient for results to be statistically reliable.


These breaks were established to enable the identification of significant differences in response patterns among the various community sectors represented by the sub-samples. For all analysis of these standard demographic breaks, and for the local issues tables, we have applied significance tests to the differences between the sub-samples and the total sample. These appear in the tables as:

+++ significantly greater than the sample result at the 99% level of confidence ++ significantly greater than the sample result at the 95% level of confidence + significantly greater than the sample result at the 90% level of confidence - - - significantly lower than the sample result at the 99% level of confidence - - significantly lower than the sample result at the 95% level of confidence - significantly lower than the sample result at the 90% level of confidence

Tables included in this Report only show results for the Total Sample. However, a comprehensive printout of all analyses has been closely examined in compiling the commentary.

Average ratings for Importance and Performance were calculated - from which Weighted Performance Indicators were derived for each parameter being rated. These were then combined to provide a Weighted Performance Index for each of the five Themes of Council Responsibility and for Overall Performance on all 37 Areas as a whole.

Reliability of the Findings

The findings of the survey are obviously subject to Sampling Error. The maximum Probable Error of our total sample is ±3.99% at the 95% level of confidence. Comparisons between categories and subgroups are subject to varying error depending on respondent frequencies and the relative percentages of respondents falling in different response codes.

In order to better understand the principle of maximum probable error, the following example is provided. For a maximum Probable Error of plus or minus 3.99% at the 95% level of confidence, if a result of 50% was returned, we could be confident that 95% of responses fell between 46.01 % and 53.99%, which is 50% plus or minus 3.99%.

This survey is not designed to deliver definitive findings for individual Council divisions.

By continuing to use the basic survey instrument and reporting methodology over an extended period of time, data accumulated in the form of ‘norms’ permit ever more accurate and reliable benchmarks to be established.


RESPONDENT PROFILE

The following section of the report provides a graphical summary of the demographic profile of the respondents who participated in the survey. The sample averages for the following demographic characteristics are reported, as follows by:

Gender

Age Group

Neighbourhood

Home Ownership

Present Work Status

The following profile of the survey respondents in Redland City Council is important as it provides an overview of the community members who have provided their opinion and perceptions about Council in the following sections of this report.

In terms of gender, the screened sample of ‘interested’ respondents comprised (50%) males and (50%) females.

Due to the low incidence of the youngest age group (18-24 age group), it has been added to the 25-34 years age group for the analysis in this report. This low response is typical and indicates a much lower interest in local government matters. Additionally, as respondents were screened for interest in local government matters, this may also go some way to explain low numbers for this age group.

65 yrs and over28%

45-54 yrs25%

55-64 yrs22%

35-44 yrs18%

18-34 yrs7%

Age Group


The majority (46%) of respondents were ‘living as a couple’ households.

The majority (86%) of the respondents live in built up areas, close to neighbours.

Living as a couple46%

Living as a family (2 parent)

33%

Living alone16%

Living as a family (1 parent)

4%

Single /sharing accommodation

1%

Household situation

Built up area, living close to

neighbours86%

Acreage or semi rural (1/2 1

hectare)10%

Rural residential (more than 1-2

hect.)2%

Truly rural area, like

living on a farm1%

Refused1%

Neighbourhood


Renters account for 13% of respondents.

87% of respondents were home-owners.

Almost half (41%) of the respondents were Managers/Professional (24%) or Para-professional/Trades persons (17%)

Own home87%

Renting13%

Home Ownership

Main income-earner not working/no

breadwinner36%

Manager/Administrator/Profession

al24%

Para-professional/ Trades person

17%

Plant or machine operator/Driver/L

abourer/Farm worker

12%

Clerical worker/Sales or Personal service

worker11%

Occupation of main breadwinner


OVERALL PERFORMANCE RATINGS

This survey method uses a weighted aggregated total performance rating to measure overall satisfaction which is calculated by summarising all Performance ratings of each of the 37 Responsibility Areas into one (1) number, weighted by the relative Importance of each Area. It is computed by using all Importance scores, all Performance scores and all weighted Performance Indicators for all 37 Responsibility Areas and calculation of the weighted Total Performance Index from the resultant totals, using the standard formula. It is close to, but not the same as, the average of all Performance means expressed as a share of the Optimum performance score.

This ‘summary number’ is called the ‘Average Total Performance Index’ (TPI) or the Aggregated Overall Performance (Weighted).

Average Total Performance Index (TPI) for the survey was calculated at 67.65%

By comparison, with LGAQ State-wide survey Metro Fringe averages in 2017, TPIs of 69.39% and 69.18% were achieved, so Redlands TPI of 67.65% for 2019 is tracking just below both Queensland wide and Metro Fringe TPIs.

Total Performance Indexes can be examined from two general perspectives - the composition (i.e. the average scores for the individual Importance and Performance scores for each of the Responsibility Areas in each of the Themes) and a comparison of the overall index scores over time (for future ongoing tracking surveys).


COMPARISON OF PERFORMANCE INDICES

The following charts show comparison of the Total Performance Index (TPI) for Redland City Council 2019 with LGAQ 2017.

The chart above, shows the Redland City Council TPI (67.65%) for 2019 compared to TPI for the 5 key themes for both Metro Fringe and Queensland State-wide in the 2017 survey.

As can be seen from the chart above (compared to Metro Fringe and Queensland State-wide surveys), Redland City Council is above the overall average TPI in 2 out of the 5 areas namely:

Qualities of Council (72.04%)

Community Lifestyle Services (76.01%)

For Redland City Council Managing the City TPI (58.31%), it is well below the Metro Fringe TPI (65.92%) and LGAQ State-wide (65.65%).

For the remaining two themes – Basic Services and Infrastructure and Customer Services and Communications, Redland City Council is generally on par with Metro Fringe counterparts and LGAQ State-wide.

68.81%

76.01%

58.31%

66.14%

72.04%

67.65%

69.24%

71.96%

65.92%

66.86%

70.13%

69.18%

70.57%

72.02%

65.65%

66.38%

69.45%

69.39%

0.00% 10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%

Basic Services / Infrastructure

Community Lifestyle Services

Managing the Shire/City

Customer Services and Communications

Qualities of Council

OVERALL WEIGHTED PERFORMANCE INDEX

Summary of Performance Indices

LGAQ STATEWIDE - 2017 LGAQ (METRO FRINGE) SURVEY - 2017 REDLAND 2019


ANALYSIS OF KEY POINTS

Explanation of Importance & Performance Ratings

In conjunction with TPI, mean score ratings are also used to understand average IMPORTANCE or PERFORMANCE ratings given by all respondents, and a 5-point scales is used with clarifying semantic differentials as follows:

IMPORTANCE PERFORMANCE

Crucial (5) Very Good (5) Important (4) Good (4) Nice to Have (3) Fair Only (3) Unimportant (2) Poor (2) Quite Unimportant (1) Very Poor (1)

In both measurements, provision was also made for unprompted ‘Don't Know’ or ‘Not Applicable’ responses. These were factored out of the calculations by giving them a value = 0.

While the words used in the Performance Scales each have an obvious meaning, those used in the Importance Scales were explained in detail to all respondents by the interviewers:

‘Crucial’ means that it is a service or activity that the community must have and that it is vitalfor the council either to do or to get involved in to make sure that it is done by someone.

‘Important’ is for something that you certainly expect your council to do, provide or make surethat somebody else provides it.

‘Nice To Have’ means just that, as does ‘Not Very Important’.

‘Quite Unimportant’ means unnecessary - something that in any council cutbacks would be thefirst to go.

Achieved MEAN scores should thus be considered in relation to the scale being applied. For example:

a MEAN of 4.5 on Importance indicates that the particular responsibility/quality is adjudgedmid-way between Important and Crucial.

a MEAN of 3.5 for Performance means that the Council is seen as mid-way between Fair Onlyand Good in being effective/delivering service on that particular criterion.


Areas of Lowest Performance Relative to Importance

The Table shows the 18 Responsibility Areas and graph (overleaf) highlight where there are the greatest gaps between Performance and Importance mean scores.

Responsibility Area Importance Performance Share of Optimum Mean Rank Mean Rank

Town Planning 4.66 5= 2.68 32 53.6%

Parking Facilities 4.38 17= 2.70 31 53.9%

Responding to the Community

4.67 4 2.81 30 56.1%

Traffic Management 4.56 9 2.83 29= 56.6%

Economic Development/Local

Employment

4.40 16 2.83 29= 56.6%

Financial Management 4.71 3 2.92 28= 58.4%

Consulting the Community 4.65 6 2.92 28= 58.4%

Environment Protection & Conservation

4.32 18 2.97 27 59.3%

Public Transport 4.38 17= 2.99 26 59.7%

Development of Tourism 4.02 27= 3.06 25 61.2%


4.53 11 3.08 24 61.6%

Revenue-raising 4.43 15 3.11 23 62.2%

Road Construction 4.46 13 3.15 22 63.1%

Environmental Controls 4.21 23 3.20 21 64.0%

Road Maintenance 4.57 8= 3.21 20= 64.1%

Footpaths, Kerbing, Guttering

4.14 24 3.21 20= 64.2%

Community Development 4.13 25 3.25 19 65.1%

Heritage Protection 4.02 27= 3.28 18 65.7%

*Responsibility Areas shown in shading were rated in ‘top ten’ in overall importance


These 18 Responsibility Areas have been selected on the basis that

their Importance rating is at least 3.96 (on the border-line of ‘4’= ‘Important’), and

their Performance is more than 1.5% below Average (where Average Total Performance Indexis 67.65%).

The size of the job to be done can be defined in two ways:

Move the Performance Mean from the current rating up to the Optimum level (‘a score of ‘5’).Current Performance as a share of Optimum is shown in the Share of Optimum column. Thedifference between ‘Share of Optimum’ and 100.0% shows how actual performance has toimprove to achieve a score of ‘5’.

Achieve Equilibrium between Performance and Importance by closing the ‘gap’ between theirrespective Mean scores. If the gap between the average ratings for Importance andPerformance were to close, there would be a significant improvement in communityperceptions of Overall Performance.

4.02

4.13

4.14

4.57

4.21

4.46

4.43

4.53

4.02

4.38

4.32

4.65

4.71

4.40

4.56

4.67

4.38

4.66

3.28

3.25

3.21

3.21

3.20

3.15

3.11

3.08

3.06

2.99

2.97

2.92

2.92

2.83

2.83

2.81

2.70

2.68

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Heritage Protection

Community Development


Road Maintenance

Environmental Controls

Road Construction

Revenue-raising


Development of Tourism

Public Transport

Evironment Protection & Conservation

Consulting the Community

Financial Management

Economic Development/Local Employment

Traffic Management


Parking Facilities

Town Planning

Lowest Performers - Importance & Performance Comparison

Performance Mean Importance Mean


Areas of Highest Performance Relative to Importance

There are 15 Responsibility Areas (out of the total of 37) on which Council performed best in relation to their judged importance. These are summarised in the table below and graphically overleaf. In this case, ‘best’ is defined as having:

an Importance rating of at least 3.96 (on the border-line of ‘4’= ‘Important’), and

Performance more than 1.5% above Average (where Average Performance is 67.65%- the(calculated) Average Total Performance Index).



Libraries & other Information Access

4.27 19

4.26 1 85.3%

Waste Management 4.66 5= 4.11 2 82.1%

Sewerage 4.73 2 4.05 3 81.0%

Water Supply 4.78 1 4.02 4 80.4%

Customer Service 4.48 12 3.87 5 77.5%

Parks, Playgrounds & Public Amenities 4.01 28 3.81 7 76.2%

Information Services 4.45 14= 3.78 8 75.6%

Drainage & Flood Mitigation 4.55 10 3.77 9 75.4%

Shopping Facilities 4.25 20 3.62 10 72.4%

Community Safety 4.45 14= 3.61 11 72.3%

Quality & Performance of Staff

4.57 8=

3.60 12 72.0%

Street Lighting 4.24 21 3.57 13= 71.3%

Community Health 4.38 17= 3.57 13= 71.3%

Community Services 4.22 22 3.52 14 70.3%

Pet/Animal Control 4.11 26 3.49 15 69.9%


4.27

4.66

4.73

4.78

4.48

4.01

4.45

4.55

4.25

4.45

4.57

4.24

4.38

4.22

4.11

4.26

4.11

4.05

4.02

3.87

3.81

3.78

3.77

3.62

3.61

3.60

3.57

3.57

3.52

3.49

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00


Waste Management

Sewerage

Water Supply

Customer Service


Information Services

Drainage & Flood Mitigation

Shopping Facilities

Community Safety


Street Lighting

Community Health

Community Services

Pet/Animal Control

Highest Performers - Importance & Performance Comparison

Performance Mean Importance Mean


Areas of Average Performance

There is only one Responsibility Area (out of the total of 37) on which Council has received an average score which is defined as having:


Performance not more than 1.5% below or above Average (where Average Performance 67.65%- the (calculated) Average Total Performance Index).


Informing the Community 4.64 7 3.42 16 68.3%


Areas of Least Importance

Only 3 of the 37 Responsibility Areas have not been considered in formulating the previous three lists (Highest Performers, Lowest Performers and Average Performers) because they did not have an Importance rating greater than 3.96, or 4 when rounded (i.e.= ‘Important’).

Nevertheless, they do exist, and are listed below - ranked by their Performance score, as used in the previous three tables.

Despite their Importance rating being regarded as fairly low, by the Community at large, Councils cannot avoid expending resources upon them, as they are very Important to some members of the community (e.g. Sporting & Recreational Facilities is rated as ‘important’ by 48.7% of respondents). Hence, the detailed data on these particular areas has to be examined, to formulate priorities - as these show the proportions of the community who have varying priorities.


Cultural & Entertainment Facilities

3.86 30 3.85 6= 77.1%

Sporting & Recreational Facilities

3.89 29 3.85 6= 76.9%

Cycleways 3.68 31 3.29 17 65.9%


EVALUATIONS OF TOTAL PERFORMANCE

The following pages present tables showing performance indices (used to benchmark successive measures of performance). These can be used to guide plans and policies in order to improve the levels of satisfaction of the residents of Redland City Council – Local Government Area.

Weighted Performance Indicators

The tabular calculations give the results for each Responsibility Area within each Theme as a Weighted Performance Indicator (WPI). The table then combines these individual Weighted Performance Indicators to produce an overall Total Performance Index (TPI) for each Theme.

Individual Weighted Performance Indicators are produced by multiplying the average Performance Rating awarded to a council for each Responsibility Area within a particular Theme by the average Importance Rating given to it. This ‘weights’ each individual Performance score by the level of community priority for that specific Area.

To obtain the Total Performance Index (TPI) for each Theme, the individual Weighted Performance Indicators are summed, as an Achieved Score, and percentaged against a Possible Score - which could be achieved only if all respondents gave their council a ‘5’ rating (‘Very Good’) for Performance on all the Responsibility Areas in that Theme.

These TPI’s become a benchmark against which Council can track, over individual and successive surveys, the effectiveness with which they have addressed community expectations. They also provide objective numerical data which can be used to crystallise - from the viewpoint of residents - Objectives set out in Council Strategic or Corporate Plans. They describe ‘what is’ - actual performance, adjusted for relative importance priorities.


Basic Services & Infrastructure

Weighted Performance Index (in order of Importance)

Theme 1 Basic Services/Infrastructure

2019 Survey

Importance Means

Performance Means

Performance Indexes

Water Supply 4.78 4.02 80.4%

Sewerage 4.73 4.05 81.0%

Waste Management 4.66 4.11 82.1%

Road Maintenance 4.57 3.21 64.1%

Traffic Management 4.56 2.83 56.6%

Drainage & Flood Mitigation 4.55 3.77 75.4%

Road Construction 4.46 3.15 63.1%

Community Health 4.38 3.57 71.3%

Public Transport 4.38 2.99 59.7%

Parking Facilities 4.38 2.70 53.9%

Street Lighting 4.24 3.57 71.3%

Footpaths, Kerbing, Guttering 4.14 3.21 64.2%

MEANS 4.48 3.43

Total Performance Index 68.81%

The weighted Total Performance Index (TPI) for Basic Services & Infrastructure is one number, which sums up the whole interaction between Performance and Priorities for this particular Theme.

In 2019, the actuality of the interaction between these two forces gives a result of 68.81% of what might have been achieved if Redland City Council were to achieve perfect performance for every Responsibility Area.

The table shows a comparison of how the community actually judges Council performance, as it makes allowance for the relative Importance of each of the Activity Areas judged. This ‘reality’ is shown in the Weighted Performance Indicator numbers. However, the rank order of these WPIs is clearly at variance with the priorities with which the community wants matters to be handled (the table is formatted in the rank order of Importance scores).




Theme 2 Community Lifestyle Services

2019 Survey

Importance Means

Performance Means

Performance Indexes


4.27 4.26 85.3%


3.86 3.85 77.1%


3.89 3.85 76.9%


4.01 3.81 76.2%

Shopping Facilities 4.25 3.62 72.4%

Community Safety 4.45 3.61 72.3%

Community Services 4.22 3.52 70.3%

Pet/Animal Control 4.11 3.49 69.9%

Cycleways 3.68 3.29 65.9%

Heritage Protection 4.02 3.28 65.7%

Community Development 4.13 3.25 65.1%

Environmental Controls 4.21 3.20 64.0%

Environment Protection & Conservation

4.32 2.97 59.3%

Means 4.11 3.54


The weighted Total Performance Index (TPI) for Community Lifestyle Services in 2019 is 76.01% of the Optimum.

Weighted Performance Indicator scores vary from survey to survey, as they are affected by changes to Importance scores as well as Performance scores. Therefore, they can be used as a way of ensuring that planning targets for both Importance and Performance are kept within realistic achievable ranges.

They also clearly show where the community’s resources should be allocated to achieve planning objectives


Managing the City


Theme 3 Managing the City

2019 Survey

Importance Means

Performance Means

Performance Indexes

Financial Management 4.71 2.92 58.4%

Town Planning 4.66 2.68 53.6%

Revenue-raising 4.43 3.11 62.2%


4.40 2.83 56.6%

Development of Tourism 4.02 3.06 61.2%

Means 4.44 2.92


The weighted Total Performance Index (TPI) for Managing the City in 2019 is 58.3% of the Optimum.

The table shows a comparison of how the community actually judges the performance of Council as it makes allowance for the relative Importance of each of the Activity Areas judged. This ‘reality’ is shown in the Weighted Performance Indicator numbers.


Customer Service and Communications


Theme 4 Customer Service and Communication

2019 Survey

Importance Means

Performance Means

Performance Indexes


4.67 2.81 56.1%


4.65 2.92 58.4%

Informing the Community 4.64 3.42 68.3%


4.53 3.08 61.6%

Customer Service 4.48 3.87 77.5%

Information Services 4.45 3.78 75.6%

Means 4.57 3.31


The weighted Total Performance Index (TPI) for Customer Service & Communications for 2019 is 66.14%.

The table shows a comparison of how the community actually judges Council performance for this theme, as it makes allowance for the relative Importance of each of the Activity Areas judged. This ‘reality’ is shown in the Weighted Performance Indicator numbers. However, the rank order of these WPIs is clearly at variance with the priorities with which the community wants matters to be handled (shown by the rank order of Importance scores).




Theme 5 Qualities of Council

2017 Survey

Importance Means

Performance Means

Performance Indexes

Quality & Performance of Staff 4.57 3.60 72.0%

Means 4.57 3.60


The 2019 weighted Total Performance Index (TPI) for Qualities of Council is 72.04%.

The table shows how the community actually judges Council performance, as it makes allowance for the relative Importance of each of the Activity Areas judged. This ‘reality’ is shown in the Weighted Performance Indicator numbers. However, the rank order of these WPIs is again at variance with Importance priorities (shown by the rank order of Importance scores).


COMMUNITY RATINGS OF COUNCIL RESPONSIBILITY AREAS (THEMES)

This section comprises two sets of tables and commentary:

the first set of tables deals with the community’s priorities - the IMPORTANCE of each Area ofResponsibility/Service;

the second set of tables deals with the community’s perceptions of what is actually the case -the ratings for COUNCIL PERFORMANCE in each Area of Responsibility / Service.

N.B. In the following tables, the Responsibility Areas being rated are presented in the order of consideration by respondents, not in rank order of Importance or Performance.

In terms of importance mean scores as compared with results for the LGAQ 2017 survey for both Queensland State-wide and Metro Fringe Councils, these results are summarised below. What is clear is that Redland City Council respondents have placed far greater emphasis on importance of responsibilities areas across all five themes compared to their counterpart Councils across the State.

The following section sets out in details ratings for each responsibility area within the theme and includes some analysis of significant variances from samples averages for these ratings. This will help Council to build a picture of where different sub-samples have viewed importance differently.

4.28

3.95

4.21

4.26

4.30

4.18

3.92

4.18

4.26

4.35

4.48

4.11

4.44

4.57

4.57

3.40 3.60 3.80 4.00 4.20 4.40 4.60 4.80

Basic Services /Infrastructure



Customer Service & Communication

Quality of Council

Importance Mean Comparison - LGAQ versus Redland City Council

RCC LGAQ Metro Fringe LGAQ QLD


IMPORTANCE

Theme 1: Basic Services & Infrastructure IMPORTANCE

Sample Size

RANK Crucial Import -ant

Nice to

have

Not very

Import.

Quite Unimp-ortant

Don't Know

Not Applic -able

RCC Mean 2019

LGAQ Mean 2017

Road Construction 600 7 52.3% 42.3% 4.0% 1.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 4.46 4.21

Road Maintenance 600 4 61.2% 35.5% 2.5% 0.5% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 4.57 4.39

Footpaths, Kerbing & Guttering

600 10

30.2% 54.7% 9.8% 2.2% 0.7% 0.8% 1.7% 4.14 3.96

Street Lighting 600 9 36.5% 53.0% 6.8% 2.2% 0.7% 0.7% 0.2% 4.24 3.95

Traffic Management 600 5 63.8% 29.7% 4.5% 0.8% 0.7% 0.0% 0.5% 4.56 4.15

Parking Facilities 600 8= 43.7% 49.3% 5.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 1.0% 4.38 3.87

Public Transport 600 8= 43.7% 49.3% 5.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 1.0% 4.38 3.85

Water Supply 600 1 78.7% 20.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 4.78 4.47

Sewerage 600 2 71.0% 20.2% 2.2% 0.2% 0.0% 2.3% 4.2% 4.73 4.39


600 6

58.0% 37.3% 2.8% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 4.55 4.32

Waste Management 600 3 67.5% 30.5% 1.5% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 4.66 4.45

Community Health 600 8= 43.3% 50.3% 5.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 4.38 4.15

AVERAGE FOR THEME AS A WHOLE 4.48 4.18

The average level of Importance for the responsibilities in this Theme is 4.48. All responsibility areas were judged as ‘important’ (a mean rating of 4.00 or better).

The top 2 priorities are:

Water Supply (4.78)

Sewerage (4.73)

Those regarded as least important, were Street Lighting (4.24) and Footpaths, Kerbing & Guttering (4.14).

Significant variances (by age, gender and location) from the sample averages are also shown, below each graph, for each responsibility area.


Significant variances by:

Gender none

Age none

Location 16.7% from North Stradbroke Island – Nice to have 6.7% from North Stradbroke Island – Unimportant 2.0% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Not applicable


Gender none

Age 1.8% 65 years and over - unimportant

Location 13.3% from North Stradbroke Island – Nice to have 3.3% from North Stradbroke Island – Quite Unimportant 2.0% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Not Applicable

Crucial 52%

Important 43%

Nice to have 4%

Not very Import. 1%

Quite Unimportant

0%Don't Know

0%

Not Applicable0%

Road Construction

Crucial 61%

Important 35%

Nice to have 3%

Not very Import. 1%

Quite Unimportant

0%

Don't Know0%

Not Applicable0%

Road Maintenance


No significant variances.


Gender none

Age none

Location 16% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Nice to have 4% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Quite Unimportant 6.7% from North Stradbroke Island – Don’t Know 2% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Not applicable

Crucial 30%

Important 54%

Nice to have 10%

Not very Import. 2%

Quite Unimportant

1%

Don't Know1%

Not Applicable2%


Crucial 37%

Important 53%

Nice to have 7%

Not very Import. 2%

Quite Unimportant

1% Don't Know1%

Not Applicable0%

Street Lighting



Gender none

Age 74.5% aged 35-44 years – Crucial 37.6% aged 65 years and over - Important

Location 16.7% from North Stradbroke Island – Nice to have 10% from North Stradbroke Island – Unimportant 6.7% from North Stradbroke Island – Quite Unimportant 14% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Nice to have 4% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Not Applicable


Gender none

Age 1.6% aged 55-64 – Unimportant 62.4% aged 65 years and over - Important

Location 73.3% from North Stradbroke Island – Crucial 72% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands - Crucial

Crucial 64%

Important 30%

Nice to have 4%

Not very Import. 1%

Quite Unimportant

1% Don't Know0%

Not Applicable

1%

Traffic Management

Crucial 44%Important

50%

Nice to have 5%

Not very Import. 0%

Quite Unimportant

0%

Don't Know0%

Not Applicable

1%

Parking Facilities



Gender none

Age none

Location 48.5% from Inland Region – Important 66.7% from North Stradbroke Island – Crucial 74% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands - Crucial


Crucial 44%

Important 50%

Nice to have 5%

Not very Import.

0%

Quite Unimportant

0%

Don't Know

0%Not Applicable

1%

Public Transport

Crucial 79%

Important20%

Nice to have 1%

Not very Import.

0%

Quite Unimp-ortant

0% Don't Know0%Not Applicable

0%

Water Supply



Gender 4% of Females – Nice to have

Age none

Location 79.7% from Coastal Region – Crucial 3.3% from North Stradbroke Island – Unimportant 10% from North Stradbroke Island – Don’t Know 16% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Nice to have 8% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Don’t Know 36% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Not Applicable


Gender none

Age 6.2% aged 55-64 years – Nice to have

Location 16.7% from North Stradbroke Island – Not Applicable 16% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Nice to have

Crucial 71%

Important 20%

Nice to have 2%

Not very Import.

0% Quite Unimportant

0%

Don't Know3% Not Applicable

4%

Sewerage

Crucial 58%

Important 37%

Nice to have 3%

Not very Import. 1%

Quite Unimportant

0% Don't Know0%

Not Applicable1%




Gender none

Age none

Location 10% from North Stradbroke Island – Nice to have 3.3% from North Stradbroke Island – Not Applicable 2.0% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands - Unimportant


Gender none

Age 58.8% aged 65 years and over - Important

Location 66.7% from North Stradbroke Island - Crucial 3.3% from North Stradbroke Island – Unimportant 70% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands - Crucial

Crucial 67%

Important 31%

Nice to have 2%

Not very Import. 0%

Quite Unimportant

0%

Don't Know0%

Not Applicable0%

Waste Management

Crucial 44%

Important 50%

Nice to have 5%

Not very Import. 0%

Quite Unimportant

0%

Don't Know

1% Not Applicable0%

Community Health


Theme 2: Community Lifestyle Services IMPORTANCE

TOTAL RANK Crucial Import -ant

Nice to

have

Not very

Import.

Quite Unimp-ortant

Don't Know

Not Applic -able

RCC Mean 2019

LGAQ Mean 2017


600 10 26.8% 48.7% 22.3% 1.7% 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% 4.01 3.91


600 6 36.2% 48.8% 13.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.5% 0.2% 4.21 3.87


600 2 46.3% 41.2% 10.0% 1.7% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 4.32 3.99

Heritage Protection 600 9 30.8% 43.3% 21.2% 2.7% 0.7% 1.0% 0.3% 4.02 3.87


600 11 22.7% 48.7% 23.2% 3.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.2% 3.89 3.79


600 12 21.0% 48.3% 26.0% 2.7% 1.3% 0.5% 0.2% 3.86 3.64


600 3 41.5% 44.0% 12.8% 0.7% 0.3% 0.5% 0.2% 4.27 4.05

Community Safety 600 1 53.5% 37.2% 8.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.7% 0.2% 4.45 4.28

Community Service 600 5 39.0% 41.8% 16.7% 0.3% 0.0% 1.8% 0.3% 4.22 4.10

Pet/Animal Control 600 8 32.2% 49.0% 15.0% 2.3% 0.5% 0.8% 0.2% 4.11 3.79

Shopping Facilities 600 4 39.7% 46.7% 12.2% 1.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 4.25 3.89


600 7 27.5% 53.8% 12.3% 1.0% 0.3% 5.0% 0.0% 4.13 3.84

Cycleways 600 13 23.7% 35.5% 25.3% 11.3% 2.3% 1.0% 0.8% 3.68 na


The average level of Importance for the responsibilities in this Theme is 4.11.

The following three responsibility areas were rated most important:

Community Safety (4.45) Environmental Protection & Conservation (4.32) Libraries & other Information Access (4.27)

Cycleways (3.68) was awarded the lowest priority.




Gender none

Age 4.1% aged 65 years and over - Unimportant

Location 28.8% from Coastal Region – Nice to have 73.3% from North Stradbroke Island – Crucial 3.3% from North Stradbroke Island – Don’t know 44% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands - Crucial


Gender none

Age none

Location 3.5% from Inland Region – Unimportant 76.7% from North Stradbroke Island – Crucial

Crucial 27%

Important 49%

Nice to have 22%

Not very Import. 2%

Quite Unimportant

0%Don't Know0%

Not Applicable0%


Crucial 36%

Important 49%

Nice to have 13%

Not very Import. 1%

Quite Unimportant

0% Don't Know1%

Not Applicable0%




Gender none

Age none

Location 4.5% from Inland Region – Unimportant 80% from North Stradbroke Island – Crucial 3.3% from North Stradbroke Island – Quite Unimportant


Gender none

Age 40.3% aged 55-64 years - Crucial

Location 56.0% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands - Crucial

Crucial 46%

Important 41%

Nice to have 10%

Not very Import. 2%

Quite Unimportant

1%

Don't Know0%

Not Applicable0%


Crucial 31%

Important 43%

Nice to have 21%

Not very Import.

3%

Quite Unimportant

1%

Don't Know1%

Not Applicable0%

Heritage Protection



Gender none

Age none

Location 28.1% from Coastal Region – Nice to have 53.3% from North Stradbroke – Crucial


Gender none

Age none

Location 6.7% from North Stradbroke Island – Quite Unimportant 42% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Crucial 2.0% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Not Applicable

Crucial 22%

Important 49%

Nice to have 23%

Not very Import. 4%

Quite Unimportant

1%

Don't Know1%

Not Applicable0%


Crucial 21%

Important 48%

Nice to have 26%

Not very Import. 3%

Quite Unimportant

1%Don't Know1% Not Applicable

0%




Gender none

Age none

Location 73.3% from North Stradbroke Island – Crucial 2.0% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Not Applicable


Gender none

Age none


Crucial 41%

Important 44%

Nice to have 13%

Not very Import. 1%

Quite Unimportant

0%

Don't Know1%

Not Applicable0%


Crucial 53%

Important 37%

Nice to have 8%

Not very Import. 1%

Quite Unimportant

0%

Don't Know1%

Not Applicable0%

Community Health & Safety



Gender none

Age none

Location 76.7% from North Stradbroke Island – Crucial 62% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands - Crucial


Gender none

Age none


Crucial 39%

Important 42%

Nice to have 17%

Not very Import. 0%

Quite Unimportant

0%Don't Know

2%

Not Applicable0%

Community Service

Crucial 32%

Important 49%

Nice to have 15%

Not very Import. 2%

Quite Unimportant

1%


0%

Pet/Animal Control



Gender 45.8% of Females – Crucial

Age 20% aged 35-44 years – Nice to have 1.8% aged 35-44 years – Don’t know

Location 61% from Inland Region - Important


Gender none

Age 62.4% aged 65 years and over – Important

Location 56.7% from North Stradbroke Island – Crucial 44% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Crucial

Crucial 40%

Important 47%

Nice to have 12%

Not very Import. 1%

Quite Unimportant

0%

Don't Know0%

Not Applicable0%

Shopping Facilities

Crucial 28%

Important 54%

Nice to have 12%

Not very Import. 1%

Quite Unimportant

0%

Don't Know5%




Gender none

Age 32.6% aged 55-64 years - Crucial

Location 63.3% from North Stradbroke Island – Crucial 6.7% from North Stradbroke Island – Not Applicable

Crucial 24%

Important 36%

Nice to have 25%

Not very Import. 11%

Quite Unimportant

2% Don't Know1%

Not Applicable

1%

Cycleways


Theme 3: Managing the City IMPORTANCE TOTAL RANK Crucial Import

-ant Nice

to have

Not very

Import.

Quite Unimp-ortant

Don't Know

Not Applic -able

RCC Mean 2019

LGAQ Mean 2017

Town Planning 600 2 68.8% 28.2% 2.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 4.66 4.31


600

4

48.0% 41.2% 6.2% 1.7% 0.0% 2.7% 0.3% 4.40 4.24


600 5

29.2% 48.8% 16.0% 3.7% 1.2% 0.8% 0.3% 4.02 3.80

Financial Management 600 1 71.8% 22.2% 2.7% 0.0% 0.2% 2.8% 0.3% 4.71 4.50

Revenue-raising 600 3 47.7% 40.0% 5.2% 0.7% 0.3% 5.7% 0.5% 4.43 4.12



Financial Management (4.71) was accorded the highest priority and Town Planning the second highest (4.66).

Development of Tourism was the lowest priority (4.02).




Gender 74.2% of Males – Crucial 33.2% of Females - Important

Age none

Location none


Gender none

Age 4.1% aged 65 years and over - Unimportant

Location 49.5% from Inland Region – Important 80% from North Stradbroke Island - Crucial

Crucial 69%

Important 28%

Nice to have 3%

Not very Import.

0%

Quite Unimportant

0%

Don't Know

0%

Not Applicable0%

Town Planning

Crucial 48%

Important 41%

Nice to have 6%

Not very Import. 2%

Quite Unimportant

0%

Don't Know3%

Not Applic -able0%




Gender 20.1% of Males – Nice to have

Age none

Location 56.7% from North Stradbroke Island – Crucial 6.7% from North Stradbroke Island – Quite Unimportant 6.7% from North Stradbroke Island – Don’t Know


Gender none


Location 31.5% from Inland Region – Important 88% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands - Crucial

Crucial 29%

Important 49%

Nice to have 16%

Not very Import. 4%

Quite Unimportant

1% Don't Know1%

Not Applicable0%


Crucial 72%

Important 22%

Nice to have 3%

Not very Import. 0%

Quite Unimportant

0%

Don't Know3%

Not Applicable0%




Gender none

Age 10.1% aged 45-54 years – Don’t know

Location 48% from Inland Region – Important 78% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands - Crucial

Crucial 48%

Important 40%

Nice to have 5%

Not very Import. 1%

Quite Unimportant

0%

Don't Know6%

Not Applicable1%

Revenue-raising


Theme 4: Customer Service and Communication IMPORTANCE

TOTAL RANK Crucial Import -ant

Nice to

have

Not very

Import.

Quite Unimp-ortant

Don't Know

Not Applic -able

RCC Mean 2019

LGAQ Mean 2017

Customer Service 600 5 50.8% 44.5% 2.7% 0.3% 0.0% 1.2% 0.5% 4.48 4.22

Information Services 600 6 50.0% 44.8% 4.5% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 4.45 4.04

Informing the Community 600 3 66.8% 30.5% 1.7% 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 4.64 4.28


600

2

67.8% 28.3% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.2% 4.65 4.34


600

1

68.3% 28.0% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.3% 4.67 4.41


600

4

57.3% 34.0% 5.5% 0.3% 0.0% 2.7% 0.2% 4.53 4.25



The equal top scores were: Responding to the Community (4.67)

Consulting the Community (4.65)

Information Services (4.45) was given lowest priority. However, all responsibility areas were judged as high, with a mean of 4 or more.




Gender none

Age none

Location 55% from Inland Region – Important 3.3% from North Stradbroke Island – Unimportant 80% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands - Crucial


Gender none

Age none

Location 53.5% from Inland Region – Important 73.3% From North Stradbroke Island – Crucial 3.3% from North Stradbroke Island – Not Applicable 78% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Crucial

Crucial 51%

Import-ant 44%

Nice to have 3%

Not very Import. 0%

Quite Unimportant

0%

Don't Know1%

Not Applicable1%

Customer Service

Crucial 50%

Important 45%

Nice to have 5%

Not very Import. 0%

Quite Unimportant

0%

Don't Know

0%

Not Applicable0%




Gender none

Age 1.8% aged 35-44 years – Don’t know 39.4% aged 65 years and over - Important

Location none


Gender none

Age 2.7% aged 35-44 years – Don’t know 37.6% aged 65 years and over - Important

Location 93.3% from North Stradbroke Island - Crucial

Crucial 67%

Important 31%

Nice to have 2%

Not very Import. 0%

Quite Unimportant

0%

Don't Know0%

Not Applicable0%

Informing the Community

Crucial 68%

Important 28%

Nice to have 3%

Not very Import. 0%

Quite Unimportant

0%

Don't Know1%

Not Applicable0%




Gender none


Location 3.3% from North Stradbroke Island – Not Applicable


Gender none

Age 10.9% aged 35-44 years – Nice to have

Location 8.4% from Coastal Region – Nice to have 6.7% from North Stradbroke Island – Unimportant 90% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Crucial

Crucial 68%

Important 28%

Nice to have 3%

Not very Import.

0%Quite

Unimportant 0%

Don't Know1%

Not Applicable0%


Crucial 57%

Important 34%

Nice to have 6%

Not very Import. 0%

Quite Unimportant

0%

Don't Know3%

Not Applicable0%



Theme 5: Quality of Council IMPORTANCE

TOTAL Crucial Import -ant

Nice to

have

Not very

Import.

Quite Unimp-ortant

Don't Know

Not Applic -able

RCC Mean 2019

LGAQ Mean 2017

Quality and Performance of Council Staff

600 59.7% 36.8% 2.2% 0.7% 0.0% 0.5% 0.2% 4.57 na

The Quality and Performance of Council Staff rated 4.57, between important and crucial.

The LGAQ Mean is not shown as for this survey, five responsibility areas comprise this theme, so for Redlands survey there can be no direct comparison of importance.


Gender none


Location 86% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands - Crucial

Crucial 60%

Important 37%

Nice to have 2%

Not very Import.

1%

Quite Unimportant

0%

Don't Know1%

Not Applicable0%



PERFORMANCE

In terms of performance mean scores as compared with results for the LGAQ 2017 survey for both Queensland State-wide and Metro Fringe Councils, these results are summarised below. Redland City Council respondents are tracking on par in three out of five themes, namely Basic Services/Infrastructure, Community Lifestyle Services and Customer Services and Communication, just ahead in performance for Quality of Council and well below in Managing the Shire.

The following section sets out in details ratings for each responsibility area within the theme and includes some analysis of significant variances from samples averages for these ratings. This will help Council to build a picture of where different sub-samples have viewed their performance differently.

3.52

3.60

3.28

3.32

3.47

3.45

3.60

3.30

3.35

3.51

3.43

3.54

2.92

3.31

3.60

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00





Quality of Council

Performance Mean Comparison - LGAQ versus Redland City Council



Theme 1: Basic Services & Infrastructure PERFORMANCE

Sample Size

RANK Very Good

Good Fair Only

Poor Very Poor

Don't Know

Not Applic -able

RCC Mean 2019

LGAQ Mean 2017

Road Construction 600 7 7.0% 33.3% 34.3% 14.8% 8.7% 1.7% 0.2% 3.15 3.38

Road Maintenance 600 6= 6.7% 34.7% 36.8% 14.5% 6.5% 0.5% 0.3% 3.21 3.29


599 6=

5.8% 37.0% 32.2% 12.2% 8.2% 1.7% 2.8% 3.21 3.28

Street Lighting 600 5= 10.8% 48.5% 28.3% 5.7% 4.5% 1.2% 1.0% 3.57 3.56

Traffic Management 600 9 4.7% 25.3% 30.2% 23.7% 13.8% 1.3% 1.0% 2.83 3.33

Parking Facilities 600 10 4.8% 20.8% 27.7% 26.3% 16.7% 1.7% 2.0% 2.70 3.11

Public Transport 599 8 8.0% 23.7% 20.0% 22.2% 9.3% 13.3% 3.3% 2.99 3.08

Water Supply 600 3 26.5% 57.0% 9.3% 2.7% 3.3% 0.3% 0.8% 4.02 3.72

Sewerage 600 2 23.3% 56.2% 7.3% 1.3% 3.0% 2.0% 6.8% 4.05 3.86


600 4

15.7% 52.3% 19.2% 5.0% 2.8% 2.2% 2.8% 3.77 3.36

Waste Management 600 1 25.0% 63.2% 6.8% 2.2% 1.2% 1.0% 0.7% 4.11 3.93

Community Health 600 5= 8.7% 47.2% 23.3% 4.7% 4.8% 11.2% 0.2% 3.57 3.54

AVERAGE FOR THEME AS A WHOLE

3.43 3.45

The average performance rating for this Theme is 3.43.

The top performers were:

Sewerage (4.05)

Waste Management (4.11)

The poorest performing area was Parking Facilities (2.70).




Gender none

Age none

Location 16% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Very good


Gender none

Age 21.7% aged 55-64 years - Poor

Location 6.7% from North Stradbroke Island – Not Applicable 18% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Very Poor

Very Good 7%

Good 33%

Fair Only 34%

Poor 15%

Very Poor 9%

Don't Know2%

Not Applicable0%

Road Construction

Very Good 7%

Good 35%

Fair Only 37%

Poor 15%

Very Poor 6%

Don't Know1%

Not Applicable0%

Road Maintenance



Gender none

Age 7% aged 55-64 years – Not Applicable 4.1% aged 65 years and over – Don’t know

Location 42.5% from Coastal Region – Good 30% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Poor 24% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Very Poor 10% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Not Applicable


Gender 2.3% of Females – Don’t know

Age 17.6% aged 45-54 years – Very good

Location 16% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Poor 22% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Very Poor

Very Good

6%

Good 37%

Fair Only 32%

Poor 12%

Very Poor 8%

Don't Know2%

Not Applicable3%


Very Good 11%

Good 48%

Fair Only 28%

Poor 6%

Very Poor 5%

Don't Know1%

Not Applicable1%

Street Lighting



Gender none

Age 4.7% aged 55-64 years – Not applicable

Location none


Gender none

Age none

Location 43.3% from North Stradbroke Island – Very Poor 50% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Very Poor

Very Good 5%

Good 25%

Fair Only 30%

Poor 24%

Very Poor 14%

Don't Know1%

Not Applicable1% Traffic Management

Very Good

5%

Good 21%

Fair Only 28%

Poor 26%

Very Poor 16%

Don't Know2%

Not Applicable2%

Parking Facilities



Gender 5.6% of Females – Not applicable

Age none

Location 18% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Very Good 44% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands - Good


Gender none

Age none

Location 10% from North Stradbroke Islands – Not Applicable

Very Good 8%

Good 24%

Fair Only 20%

Poor 22%

Very Poor 9%

Don't Know14%

Not Applicable3%

Public Transport

Very Good 27%

Good 57%

Fair Only 9%

Poor 3%

Very Poor 3%

Don't Know

0% Not Applicable1%

Water Supply



Gender none

Age 67.3% aged 35-44 years - Good

Location 65.6% from Coastal Region – Good 13.3% from North Stradbroke Island – Very Poor 16% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Very Poor 42% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Not Applicable


Gender none

Age none

Location 58.1% from Coastal Region – Good 13.3% from North Stradbroke Island – Very Poor 13.3% from North Stradbroke Island – Not Applicable 14% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Very Poor

Very Good 23%

Good 56%

Fair Only 7%

Poor 2%

Very Poor 3%

Don't Know2%

Not Applicable7%

Sewerage

Very Good 16%

Good 52%

Fair Only 19%

Poor 5%

Very Poor 3%


3%




Gender none

Age 78.2% aged 35-44 years - Good

Location 26.7% from North Stradbroke Island – Fair Only 16.7% from North Stradbroke Island – Poor 8% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands - Poor


Gender none

Age 8.8% aged 45-54 years – Very poor

Location 30% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Very Poor

Very Good 25%

Good 63%

Fair Only 7%

Poor 2%

Very Poor 1%

Don't Know

1%

Not Applicable1%

Waste Management

Very Good 9%

Good 47%

Fair Only 23%

Poor 5%

Very Poor 5%

Don't Know11%

Not Applicable0%

Community Health


Theme 2: Community Lifestyle Services PERFORMANCE

TOTAL RANK Very Good

Good Fair Only

Poor Very Poor

Don't Know

Not Applic -able

RCC Mean 2019

LGAQ Mean 2017


600 3 15.2% 56.7% 16.3% 3.5% 3.3% 4.8% 0.2% 3.81 3.80

Environmental Controls 600 11 5.7% 34.5% 34.3% 11.7% 7.7% 5.8% 0.3% 3.20 3.37


600 12 4.8% 25.2% 40.2% 12.3% 12.8% 4.5% 0.2% 2.97 3.31

Heritage Protection 600 9 5.2% 32.2% 34.0% 7.3% 5.7% 14.8% 0.8% 3.28 3.44


599 2= 15.5% 55.0% 17.2% 2.5% 2.5% 7.0% 0.2% 3.85 3.77


599 2= 18.8% 51.2% 17.7% 4.2% 2.2% 5.5% 0.3% 3.85 3.63


600 1 38.2% 48.3% 7.7% 1.5% 0.7% 3.5% 0.2% 4.26 4.04

Community Safety 600 5 10.3% 46.5% 25.8% 5.3% 3.0% 8.8% 0.2% 3.61 3.59

Community Service 600 6 5.0% 43.3% 27.3% 4.5% 3.0% 16.2% 0.7% 3.52 3.51

Pet/Animal Control 600 7 9.3% 43.2% 27.8% 7.7% 4.3% 7.2% 0.5% 3.49 3.41

Shopping Facilities 600 4 18.7% 45.5% 17.7% 11.7% 5.0% 1.3% 0.2% 3.62 3.79


600 10 3.7% 31.0% 32.2% 10.2% 3.8% 18.2% 1.0% 3.25 3.51

Cycleways 600 8 4.8% 39.7% 23.5% 9.3% 7.5% 14.3% 0.8% 3.29 na


3.54 3.60

The average performance rating for this Theme is 3.54.

The top performer was Libraries & Other Information Access (4.26)

Equal second (3.85) highest performing areas were:



The poorest performing area was Environment Protection & Conservation (2.97).


62


Gender none

Age none

Location 19.4% from Coastal Region – Very Good 13.3% from North Stradbroke Island – Poor 23.3% from North Stradbroke Island – Very Poor


Gender none

Age none

Location 20% from North Stradbroke Island – Very Good 23.3% from North Stradbroke Island – Very Poor 4.0% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Not Applicable

Very Good 15%

Good 57%

Fair Only 16%

Poor 4%

Very Poor 3%

Don't Know5%

Not Applicable0%


Very Good

6%

Good 34%

Fair Only 34%

Poor 12%

Very Poor 8%

Don't Know6%

Not Applicable0%


63


Gender none

Age none

Location 16.7% from North Stradbroke Island – Very Good 3.3% from North Stradbroke Island – Not Applicable


Gender none

Age none

Location 23.5% from Inland Region – Don’t Know

Very Good 5%

Good 25%

Fair Only 40%

Poor 12%

Very Poor 13%

Don't Know5%

Not Applicable0%


Very Good 5%

Good 32%

Fair Only 34%

Poor 7%

Very Poor 6%

Don't Know15%

Not Applicable1% Heritage Protection

64


Gender none

Age 12.9% aged 65 years and over – Don’t know

Location 11.0% from Inland Region – Don’t Know 23.3% from North Stradbroke Island – Very Poor 32.0% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Fair Only 8.0% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Poor 10% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Very Poor 2.0% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Not Applicable


Gender none

Age none

Location 24.7% from Coastal Region – Very Good 23.3% from North Stradbroke Island – Very Poor 3.3% from North Stradbroke Island – Not Applicable 14.0% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands - Poor

Very Good 16%

Good 55%

Fair Only 17%

Poor 2%

Very Poor 3%

Don't Know

7% Not Applicable0%


Very Good 19%

Good 51%

Fair Only 18%

Poor 4%

Very Poor 2%

Don't Know6%

Not Applicable0%


65


Gender none

Age none

Location 10.0% from North Stradbroke Island – Poor 18.0% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Fair Only 2.0% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Not Applicable


Gender none

Age none

Location 51.6% from Coastal Region – Good 35.0% from Inland Region – Fair Only

Very Good 38%

Good 48%

Fair Only 8%

Poor 1%

Very Poor 1%

Don't Know4%

Not Applicable0%


Very Good 10%

Good 47%

Fair Only 26%

Poor 5%

Very Poor 3%

Don't Know9%

Not Applicable0%

Community Health & Safety

66


Gender none

Age none

Location 13.3% from North Stradbroke Island – Very Poor 10.0% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Very Poor


Gender none

Age 40% aged 35-44 years – Fair only 11.8% aged 65+ - Don’t Know

Location 12.5% from Inland Region – Don’t Know 16.7% from North Stradbroke Island – Very Poor 4.0% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Not Applicable

Very Good 5%

Good 43%

Fair Only 27%

Poor 5%

Very Poor 3%

Don't Know16%

Not Applicable1%

Community Service

Very Good 9%

Good 43%Fair Only

28%

Poor 8%

Very Poor 4%

Don't Know7%

Not Applicable1%

Pet/Animal Control

67

Gender none

Age none

Location 55% from Inland Region – Good 16.7% from North Stradbroke Island- Very Poor 3.3% from North Stradbroke Island – Not applicable 14% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Very Poor


Gender none

Age none

Location 16.7% from North Stradbroke Island – Very Poor 6.7% from North Stradbroke Island – Not Applicable 12.0% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Very Poor

Very Good 19%

Good 45%

Fair Only 18%

Poor 12%

Very Poor 5%

Don't Know1%

Not Applicable0%

Shopping Facilities

Very Good 4%

Good 31%

Fair Only 32%

Poor 10%

Very Poor 4%

Don't Know18%

Not Applicable1%


68

Gender none

Age 20.6% aged 65 years and over – Don’t Know

Location 45.6% from Coastal Region – Good 17.8% from Coastal Region – Don’t Know 40% from North Stradbroke Island- Very Poor 6.7% from North Stradbroke Island – Not Applicable 24% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Very Poor

Very Good 5%

Good 40%

Fair Only 24%

Poor 9%

Very Poor 7%

Don't Know14%

Not Applicable1%

Cycleways

69

Theme 3: Managing the Shire PERFORMANCE


Good Fair Only

Poor Very Poor

Don't Know

Not Applic -able

RCC Mean 2019

LGAQ Mean 2017

Town Planning 600 5 1.3% 17.3% 39.3% 23.5% 13.5% 4.5% 0.5% 2.68 3.38


600 4

1.5% 19.2% 32.8% 19.2% 8.3% 17.5% 1.5% 2.83 3.18

Development of Tourism 600 2 3.3% 26.0% 37.0% 13.8% 6.8% 12.7% 0.3% 3.06 3.29

Financial Management 600 3 2.3% 20.7% 31.7% 15.2% 8.2% 19.8% 2.2% 2.92 3.23

Revenue-raising 600 1 3.8% 27.3% 28.0% 10.3% 8.0% 20.7% 1.8% 3.11 3.20


2.92 3.30

The average performance mean rating for this Theme is 2.92.

The top performer was Revenue Raising (3.11) and the poorest performing area was Town Planning (2.68).


70



Gender none


Location 38.1% from Coastal Region – Fair Only 23.5% from Inland Region – Don’t Know 32.0% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Very Poor

Very Good 1%

Good 17%

Fair Only 39%

Poor 23%

Very Poor 14%

Don't Know5%

Not Applicable1%

Town Planning

Very Good 1%

Good 19%

Fair Only 33%Poor

19%

Very Poor 8%

Don't Know18%

Not Applicable2%


71


Gender none

Age none

Location 42.8% from Coastal Region – Fair Only 18.0% from Inland Region – Don’t Know 33.3% from North Stradbroke Island – Very Poor 28.0% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Poor 22.0% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Very Poor


Gender none

Age none

Location 20.0% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Not Applicable

Very Good 3%

Good 26%

Fair Only 37%

Poor 14%

Very Poor 7%

Don't Know13%

Not Applicable0%


Very Good

2%

Good 21%

Fair Only 32%

Poor 15%

Very Poor 8%

Don't Know20%

Not Applicable2%


72


Gender none


Location 31.5% from Inland Region – Don’t Know 13.3% from North Stradbroke Island – Very Good 14% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Not Applicable

Very Good 4%

Good 27%

Fair Only 28%

Poor 10%

Very Poor 8%

Don't Know21%

Not Applicable2%

Revenue-raising

73

Theme 4: Customer Service and Communication PERFORMANCE


Good Fair Only

Poor Very Poor

Don't Know

Not Applic -able

RCC Mean 2019

LGAQ Mean 2017

Customer Service 600 1 20.5% 50.5% 17.7% 4.2% 2.2% 4.5% 0.5% 3.87 3.65

Information Services 600 2 13.0% 56.3% 19.0% 4.3% 2.0% 5.2% 0.2% 3.78 3.53

Informing the Community 600 3 7.0% 45.7% 30.7% 8.8% 5.2% 2.3% 0.3% 3.42 3.36

Consulting the Community 600 5 3.2% 26.8% 34.0% 19.5% 10.5% 5.7% 0.3% 2.92 3.22


600 6 2.7% 23.5% 31.2% 21.2% 12.7% 8.3% 0.5% 2.81 3.10


600 4 3.3% 27.3% 35.8% 10.5% 8.3% 13.8% 0.8% 3.08 3.22


The average performance rating for this Theme is 3.31

The top performers were:

Customer Service (3.87)

Information Services (3.78)

The poorest performing area was Responding to the Community (2.81).


74


Gender none

Age 26.4% aged 55-64 years – Fair only

Location 13.3% from North Stradbroke Island – Very Poor 6.7% from North Stradbroke Island – Not Applicable 8.0% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Very Poor


Gender none

Age 19.4% aged 65 years and over – Very good

Location 10.0% from North Stradbroke Island – Very Poor 3.3% from North Stradbroke Island – Not Applicable

Very Good 20%

Good 50%

Fair Only 18%

Poor 4%

Very Poor 2%


1%

Customer Service

Very Good 13%

Good 57%

Fair Only 19%

Poor 4%

Very Poor 2%

Don't Know5%

Not Applicable

0%


75


Gender none

Age 1.8% aged 35-44 years – Not applicable 14.2% aged 45-54 years – Poor

Location 48.0% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Fair Only



Age 1.8% aged 35-44 years – Not applicable 10% aged 65 years and over – Don’t know

Location 26.7% from North Stradbroke Island – Very Poor 10.0% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Very Good

Very Good 7%

Good 46%

Fair Only 31%

Poor 9%

Very Poor 5%

Don't Know2%

Not Applicable0%

Informing the Community

Very Good 3%

Good 27%

Fair Only 34%

Poor 20%

Very Poor 10%

Don't Know6%

Not Applicable0%


76



Gender none

Age none

Location 17.5% from Coastal Region – Don’t Know 10.0% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Very Good

Very Good 3%

Good 23%

Fair Only 31%

Poor 21%

Very Poor 13%

Don't Know8%

Not Applicable

1%


Very Good 3%

Good 27%

Fair Only 36%

Poor 11%

Very Poor 8%

Don't Know14%

Not Applicable1%


77

Theme 5: Quality of Council PERFORMANCE

TOTAL Very Good

Good Fair Only

Poor Very Poor

Don't Know

Not Applic -able

RCC Mean 2019

LGAQ Mean 2017


600 12.3% 43.8% 28.7% 6.0% 3.0% 6.0% 0.2% 3.60 na

The Quality and Performance of Council Staff rated 3.60, between good and fair.

The LGAQ Mean is not shown as for this survey, five responsibility areas comprise this theme, so for Redlands survey there can be no direct comparison of performance.


Gender none

Age none

Location 32.0% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Very Good

Very Good 12%

Good 44%

Fair Only 29%

Poor 6%

Very Poor 3%

Don't Know6%

Not Applicable0%


78

PUBLIC OPINION QUESTIONS – KEY FINDINGS This section of the report presents the key findings of the two public opinion questions. They were asked as ‘open ended questions’ in the survey. However, in order to give a snapshot summary, they are also graphically presented. In this survey, all questions were included in the briefing mail-out sent to each respondent prior to the main telephone interview. Consequently, respondents had time to think about the question, and give a ‘considered’ opinion. They were requested to do just this – even discuss the question with friends and relations – in the briefing letter. Where appropriate, comparisons with similar questions asked in Council’s 2016 survey were made in the following analysis. However, it should be noted the 2016 survey was not undertaken using the same methodology as this survey, so results are not directly comparable. Although, comparisons have been provided and they do give Council a very good indication of community sentiment on key similar topics.

79

Perceptions of various aspects of Redland City Council

1. Just thinking about various aspects of Redland City Council, and the city….. The following table summarises respondent’s feedback on key aspects of Redland City Council: The highest level (over 90%) of agreement was in relation to the following aspects:

‘Redlands is a good place to live’ (97%)

‘Would recommend Redlands Coast as a place to live’ (92.3%)

‘Feel a good sense of belonging here’ (90.3%) The highest level of disagreement was in relation to:

81.3% said, apartment, terrace houses, small lots etc did not appeal as housing choices for themselves and their family

Respondents were divided equally on their views about how effectively Council works with state and federal government to support the interest of the city, with 38.7% stating they ‘don’t know’, 32.2% ‘agreeing’ and 30.2% ‘disagreeing’.

Yes

% No %

Don't know

%

Is Redlands Coast a good place to live? 97 1.8 1.2

Are you generally happy with the direction of the current Council? 51.3 39 9.7

Would you recommend Redlands Coast as a place to visit? 92.3 6.8 0.8

Is Redlands a better place to live than 5 years ago? 34 52.5 13.5

Do you feel a good sense of belonging here? 90.3 7.3 2.3

Have you received a Councillor newsletter in the last 12 months? 85.2 8.7 6.2

Are you aware of the Redlands Community Plan? 49.5 48 2.5

Do you know what you get for your rates? 75.5 13.3 11.2

Do you consider that the rates and charges levied by Council are value for money relative to the range of services and facilities provided?

34.8 49.3 15.8

Do you have a household disaster management plan? 43.5 55.3 1.2

Are you aware Council sends out warning via social media? 51.3 47.5 1.2

Do apartments, terraces houses, small lots etc appeal to you as housing choices for you and your family?

18 81.3 0.7

Do large houses on large blocks appeal to you as housing choices for you and your family?

65 33.3 1.7

Does Council work effectively with state and federal government to support the interest of the city?

31.2 30.2 38.7

80

The following charts provide a graphical summary of responses to the various aspects of Redland City Council. These are then followed by a summary of significant variances for the responses to each aspect for sub-samples, compared to the total sample. Is Redlands Coast a good place to live? There was high level of agreement, with 97% of respondents stating ‘yes’ to ‘Redlands City Council is a good place to live’.


Gender 3.3% of females - No

Age 4.7% aged 65 years and over - No

Location none

Yes97%

No2%

Don't know1%

Is Redlands Coast a good place to live?

81

Are you generally happy with the direction of the current Council?

Just over half (51%) of respondents said yes, they ‘are generally happy with direction of Council’.


Gender none

Age none

Location 74% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands - Yes

Would you recommend Redlands Coast as a place to visit? There was general agreement with most (92%) of the respondents stating ‘yes’ to recommending Redlands Coast as a place to visit.

No Significant variances.

Yes51%

No39%

Don't know10%

Are you generally happy with the direction of the current Council?

Yes92%

No7%

Don't know1%

Would you recommend Redlands Coast as a place to visit?

82

Is Redlands a better place to live than 5 years ago? Just over half (52%) of respondents did not think that Redlands is a better place to live than 5 years ago.


Gender none

Age none

Location 59.1% from Coastal Region – No 76% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands - Yes

Do you feel a good sense of belonging here? Almost all (91%) respondents felt a good sense of belonging (in Redland City Council).


Yes34%

No52%

Don't know14%

Is Redlands a better place to live than 5 years ago?

Yes91%

No7%

Don't know2%

Do you feel a good sense of belonging here?

83

Have you received a Councillor newsletter in the last 12 months? The majority (85%) of respondent stated ‘yes’ they had received a Councillor newsletter in last 12 months.


Gender none

Age 14.9% aged 45-54 years - No

Location 23.3% from North Stradbroke Island - No

Are you aware of the Redland Community Plan? Respondents were split, with 49% stating they were aware of the Redland Community Plan and 48% not aware of the Redland Community Plan.


Yes85%

No9%

Don't know6%

Have you received a Councillor newsletter in the last 12 months?

Yes49%

No48%

Don't know3%

Are you aware of the Redland Community Plan?

84

Do you know what you get for your rates? Just over three quarters (76%) of respondents said ‘yes’ they knew what they get for their rates.


Gender none

Age 20.9% aged 35-44 years – don’t know

Location none

Do you consider that the rates and charges levied by Council are value for money relative to the range of services and facilities provided? Just over a third (35%) of respondent considered rates and charges levied by Council as ‘value for money’


Yes76%

No13%

Don't know11%

Do you know what you get for your rates?

Yes35%

No49%

Don't know16%

Do you consider that the rates and charges levied by Council are value for money relative to

the range of services and facilities provided?

85

Do you have a household disaster management plan? Just under half (44%) of respondent stated that they do have a household disaster management plan. In comparison to in 2016, 53% of respondents who stated that they had a household disaster management plan.


Gender none

Age none

Location 60.9% from Coastal Region - No

Are you aware Council sends out warnings via social media? Just over half (51%) of respondents were aware that Council sends out warnings via social media. In comparison to in 2016, when only 39% were aware of these social media warnings.


Gender none

Age 64.5% aged 35-44 years – Yes 60.6% 65 years and over - No

Location 76% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands - Yes

Yes44%

No55%

Don't know1%

Do you have a household disaster management plan?

Yes51%

No48%

Don't know1%

Are you aware Council sends out warnings via social media?

86

Do apartments, terraces houses, small lots etc appeal to you as housing choices for you and your family? Most (81%) of respondents said that apartments, terrace houses, small lots etc did not appeal as a housing choice.


Gender none

Age 91.8% aged 35-44 years – No 25.3% aged 65+ - Yes

Location none

Do large houses on large blocks appeal to you as housing choices for you and your family? Almost two thirds (65%) agreed that large blocks appeal as a housing choice.


Gender none

Age 76.4% aged 35-44 years - Yes

Location 60% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands - No

2. Does Council work effectively with state and federal government to support the interest of the city?

Yes18%

No81%

Don't know1%

Do apartments, terraces, houses, small lots etc appeal to you as housing choices for you and

your family?

Yes65%

No33%

Don't know2%

Do large houses on large blocks appeal to you as housing choices for you and your family?

87

Respondents were divided equally on their views about how effectively Council works with state and federal government to support the interest of the city, with 39% stating they ‘don’t know’, 31% ‘agreeing’ and 30% ‘disagreeing’.


Gender none

Age none

Location 44.1% from Coastal region – Don’t know 38% from Inland region – No

Yes31%

No30%

Don't know39%

Does Council work effectively with state and federal government to support the interest of

the city?

88

3. Is Council doing a good job of managing growth, development and providing housing choice?

Almost two thirds (63%) did not think that Council was doing a good job at managing growth and providing housing choice.


No63%

Yes19%

Don't know18%

Is Council doing a good job of managing growth, development and providing housing choice?

89

3.a Why do you say that? Key reasons provided by respondents in relation to whether they thought Council was doing a good job managing growth, development and providing housing choice are summarised graphically below. By far, most respondent’s felt “Too much high density development/small lot housing/Too many units” and “Overdevelopment” were key reasons for negative responses about Council in relation to these matters.

31.8

22.2

18.7

17.5

15.2

14.7

9

8.8

7.7

5.7

5.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Too much high density development/Small lot housing/Too many units

Overdevelopment

Not enough infrastructure for proposed housing development

Rural character/lifestyle lost

Better traffic managment and parking

Don't know

Good variety of housing choice available

Council is not spending money wisely

Council is doing a good job/Happy with this Council

Development planning is not long term

Environmental impacts of development/ destryoing wildlife habitat

Why do you say that...

90

4. How strongly would you support your Council cutting out some services or reducing service levels in others if this allowed some reduction in the level of rates or charges?

Two thirds (66%) of respondents either ‘oppose’ (42%) or ‘strongly oppose’ (24%) Council cutting out some services or reducing services levels if it allowed some reduction in rates.


For the 8% of respondents who support/strongly support cutting services they were asked to suggest what could be cut. Their verbatim suggestions are as follows:

Advertising about koalas is a waste of money. They’ve long gone now.

All services outside basic one i.e. cultural and social activities which were never meant to be council responsibility

Animal control

Any nonessential services

Any service that is not of great importance. Get fine defaulters to do local clean up rather than rate payers footing the bill?

Anything non-essential

Apart from water/sewerage/waste management services - whatever services being charged but not cost effect, then cut them down

Bicycle lanes are useless

Bit of everything/ council staff on a job need to be less - 5 working, 3 sitting

Can't think of any, obviously not really important services.

Community events / entertainment that only certain groups attend. Should be something for everyone in the community

Cut out highly paid contractors who do park maintenance and get people on the dole to do it.

Cut out some building developments

Do not waste money on Toondah Harbour

Engineering requirements can be reduced - commercial buildings have too many building regulations

Entertainment/nonessential activities (i.e. yoga)

Environmental services redirected.

Get rid of unproductive councillors and staff and use their huge wages to reduce the rates

Oppose42%

Neither / Don't know26%

Strongly oppose24%

Strongly support6%

Very strongly support

2%

How strongly would you support you Council cutting out some services or reducing service

levels in others if this allowed some reduction in the level or rates or charges?

91

I don't use 99% of the facilities so most of them can be scaled back i.e. pool, library, showground

If they were to cut the dead wood of too many councillors and use their wages to improve and construct what is needed

Mobile library, yoga lesson, free sports, bike paths. Only because I don't use them myself

Money spent on the wrong things. They must know

Need to be looked at and negotiated - not sure what

Non critical or important services

Not critical, vital services. Would need to know which services and community input needed

Not the important or necessary services

Over communicate with printed material and printed material must be reduced.

Parking fines and things like that stops people going anywhere for fear of it costing money

Parking wardens at schools. We are only there for 10-15 minutes and it can cost you a fortune if you cross a line or park for an extra minute. So dangerous for the kids but a money maker for the council.

Places like ‘Indigescape’ are an example. Waste of money

Possible park maintenance. Have council staff do it rather than send the work out to private service. May reduce cost and employ locals

Provision of cycleways / pet and animal control

Recreational services

Rubbish removal

Some deadwood. They don't maintain the footpath around here

Stop the change of name to Redlands Coast. That’ll save money. Stop approving high-rise apartments. That's not why we live here.

They've allowed too much development of housing - overcrowding

Too many staff, especially on road works, gardening etc - too many people

Tourism

Unnecessary services - Unfortunately most of those are money makers for the council. Actions that deter visitors and tourists. Nanny state things.

Unsure which services but obviously not water or waste services

92

5. Thinking about your views on the performance of your local Council as an organisation, would you say your views are more positive, about the same or less positive than they were two years ago?

Just over half (54%) of respondents, when considering performance of Council felt ‘about the same’ in terms of level of positivity about Council.


5.a What's the main reason for that? For the 7% of respondents who were generally ‘more positive’ their reasons primarily related to:

New community services and facilities being provided by Council including local road and park upgrades

Viewed Redlands as a ‘nice place to live - no issues’

Can see progress and development

Council is more proactive and communication has improved For the 37% of respondents who were less positive about Council, their reason primarily related to:

Council not providing services in their area

Overdevelopment - allowing too many houses/apartments

Lack of infrastructure – too much traffic and parking congestion

Lack of leadership – poor decision making and not listening to the community

Loss of rural environment, including impact on natural environment and loss of habitat

Contact with Council

6. Have you made contact by phone or in person with your Mayor or a Councillor in the past 12 months in relation to a Council matter?

About the same54%

Less positive37%

More positive7%

Don't know2%

Thinking about your views on the performance of you local Council as an organisation, would you

say your views are more positive, about the same or less positive than they were two years ago?

93

Just over three quarters (78%) of respondents had not made contact by phone or in person with Mayor or Councillor in last 12 months in relation to a Council matter.


(If Yes) What was the main purpose of that contact?

7. Have you made contact by phone or in person with your Mayor or a Councillor in the past 12 months in relation to a Council matter? (If Yes) What was the main purpose of that contact?

22% of respondents had made contact with the Mayor or Councillor in last 12 months, and the main reasons provided by respondents are grouped below into common themes with commentary provided below each theme.

Animal Control Main purpose of contact:

Animal control

Animal Management (x2)

Cat nuisance. Cats are not being managed

Dog noise issue

Dogs

Dogs are a nuisance

Flying foxes

Neighbours cat straying into our yard and messing

Our dog was attacked in the dog park. Suddenly it was a civil matter and we had to take necessary action

Rodent control

Neighbours light. Rubbish on the footpaths. Stray cats, Illegal parking Community Main purpose of contact:

Charity events

Community activities

Local Art Group

Men's shed, finalisation, power tool usage for grown men. Just the red tape

Met the mayor at a social event - re the koalas

No78%

Yes22%

Have you made contact by phone or in person with your Mayor or a Councillor in the past 12

months in relation to a Council matter?

94

Neighbourhood issues

Personal safety should be more important than trees

Questions about local organisation

RSL wants to take over football club, hinges on lease from council

Secretary of community Group - re various issues

Social event Development/Buildings/Approvals Main purpose of contact:

Building approval complaint

Building approval taking too long

Complaint about neighbours building

Complaint regarding development

Development at Raby Bay

Development of Toondah Harbour should be done environmentally not for profit. They are destroying a bird RAMSAR sanctuary for migrating birds.

Dilapidated houses on the island

Discuss town planning, services etc

Effects on wildlife of development (Toondah Harbour)

General plan for Stradbroke Island

Land at Birkdale given away for development Karen Williams is fighting for the land to be for tertiary facility - not housing

Over-development

Planning and development on Russell Island

Policy regarding redevelopment of Cleveland Pool

Property Development in my area

Reducing units

Regarding the trouble getting approvals

Spoke to lance Hewlett re development of Albert St

Terminal has been poorly designed

To become educated about why councillors make the decisions that they make regarding planning and development

To notify them I was moving & to find out info about vacant lot behind my house re development or other intended use

To object to the developments that are going on

To try and find out future development plans for our area

Unnecessary bridge of Perish Creek

Written letter opposing the over-development at Toondah Harbour and housing high-rise. NO response

About where the proposed over 50's development was going ahead

Environmental Main purpose of contact:

Bad drainage

Clearing of protected land

Concerning drainage in the park. Tree felling and erosion on Thorneside waterfront. Loose dogs on the beach at Thorneside

Environment issues

Environmental concerns (x2)

Expressed concerns about trees being ripped out for sewer lines

Fires on Stradbroke

Fireweed on council land (x2)

95

General conversations regarding loss of organic, productive land and green spaces

Gum trees a danger to homes

Keeping the reserve clean and tidy for koalas

Midges, but we’re told they can't spray them anymore. If they block the waterways and stop the fish breeding and the birds, naturally that interrupts the order of things - what happens? Midges because there is nothing to feed on them.

More wheel bins in parks

Mozzies and midges

Noise pollution

Park maintenance and marine environment issues

Red dust everywhere and nothing done about it

Regarding cleaning out the local creek. Puts us off any sort of fishing. Do they run sewerage into Tingalpa Creek? Always frothy along the shore

Sewerage problems due to the building across the road (high-rise)

To protect against Thornlands koala corridor destruction (Bonnie Street)

Tree lopping

Trees were cut down on foreshore dunes Flinders Beach

Wildlife concerns Maintenance Main purpose of contact:

Have footpath checked out

I have trees on the council's footpath but are destroying my fences, front and back

Ongoing removal of vegetation

Resurfacing of street and covered the area in dirt in the process. Where are the water trucks?

State of the roads

State of the roads near home

Surface of the road

Tree on the footpath causing damage and I can't touch it or I'll be fined, big time. Danger to pedestrian Rates/Permits/Fines Main purpose of contact:

About rates and dog permit

Fine dispute

Stupid fines/ NFI

Traffic/Parking Main purpose of contact:

Adjacent parking to my house

Asking for better parking in my street

Asking for parking, they listen politely but we get a negative response.

Bloomfield street parking is just terrible

Condition of road and traffic speed of hoons at Wellington Point

Driveway blockage by council workers. I ask them to move and they just said, soon

Learner driver trucks turning in my street - beeping

Parking

Parking in Middle Street

Parking on the mainland. No success

Rickett Road bottleneck. Both ends coming at the middle - the bridge. Crazy plan

Road out the front of the house

96

Roads

To get traffic calming devices in our street as there have been 2 crashes

Traffic calming - lower speeds near us

Traffic congestion at the school. There must be someway of organising that a little better (Ormiston)

Traffic in our areas. Speeding cars trying to beat the road system. Asked for mounds, speed bumps on the road rather than twists and turns. No luck. All they have to do is come down to Station Street and see the rubber on the road the hoons leave - every weekend. Infuriating/dangerous

Traffic suggestions/complaints Other Main purpose of contact:

Issue with the councillor

Like and support Williams - she does a good job

Infrastructure not meeting the needs

Why aren't all roads bitumen?

About the removal of bus shelter. Toondah Harbour disapproval

A variety of things I need advice or info about

Concerns about a general issue

Email/voice mail re Industrial estate

General conversation/ nothing specific

Social contact

The dam and water

They were shaking hands and electioneering on the street, so I spoke to them briefly

Transport issues for goods coming into the area and public transport moving people Branding

8. Where have you seen or heard the new brand Redlands Coast?

The majority of respondents (55%) were aware of the new brand for Redlands Coast. Just over a quarter (26%) had heard about the new brand Redlands Coast through ‘local paper’.


Gender none

Age 18.2% aged 35-44 years – Council/Councillor’s Newsletter 10% aged 35-44 years – Council website

26.3

10

6.8 64.5 4.3 4 3.8 3.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Local paper Council /Councillor'sNewsletter

RedlandsCoast

magazine

On streetsigns

Local Radio Word ofmouth

On cars CouncilWebsite

Social media(Facebook

etc)

Where have you seen or heard the new brand Redland Coast?

97

4.5% aged 35-44 years – On rates 3.1% aged 55-64 years - TV

Location 5.9% from Coastal region – Council website 12% from Inland Region – On cars 20% from North Stradbroke Island – On street signs

98

Community Understanding of Aboriginal Heritage

9. How much do you know about the Aboriginal community of the Redlands and their history? 83% of respondents had strong knowledge (16%) or were ‘aware’ (67%) of local Aboriginal community. This is in comparison to 2016, where 76% of respondents had a strong level of knowledge or aware of the Aboriginal community of Redlands.


Gender none

Age None

Location 56.7% from North Stradbroke Island – Strong knowledge of Aboriginal communities and traditions

Aware that there is a local

Aboriginal community

67%

Unaware of any local Aboriginal community or

traditions17%

Strong knowledge of Aboriginal

communities and traditions

16%

How much do you know about the Aboriginal community of the Redlands and their history?

99

10. Can you tell me what Quandamooka means?

Just over half of the respondents did not know the meaning of Quandamooka, and only 2.7% were able to provide the correct meaning (i.e. ‘coming for sand and sea’). This is compared to 2016, where 41% of respondents gave the correct answer for the meaning of Quandamooka.


Gender none

Age none

Location 22.4% from Coastal Region – Descendants of the first Aboriginal people of the Redlands 16.7% from North Stradbroke Island – Stradbroke Island Tribes 16.7% from North Stradbroke Island – Coming from sand and sea

56.9

18.515.2

5.3 4.1 2.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

No, don'tknow what it

means

Descendantsof the firstAboriginal

people of theRedlands

Name of thelocality

StradbrokeIsland tribes

The tribes ofMoreton andStradbroke

Islands

Coming fromsand and sea

Can you tell me what Quandamooka means?

100

11. Do you identify as …

Only 3% of respondents identified as being ‘Traditional Owners’ (1%) or “Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander’ (2%)


none of the above96%

an Aboriginal or Torres Strait

Islander2%

a Traditional Owner

1%

other non-English speaking

background1%

Do you identify as...

101

Council Information Provision

12. How do you get your information from Council?

As in 2016, the main source of information was from mail/letter box drops – 58.4% in 2019 versus 49% in 2016. The Quarterly residents newsletter from Councillors was also popular, with 56.4% nominating this as this as a source of information. The popularity of receiving information from Council website decreased from 32% in 2016 to 16.9% in 2019. In 2016, 65% of respondents stated they received a Quarterly newsletter from their Councillor versus the 56.4% of respondents in this survey, who nominated this newsletter as source of information from Council.


Gender none

Age 18.2% aged 35-44 years – Council social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) 3.4% aged 45-54 years – I have not received any information from Council

Location 51.9% from Coastal Region – The media i.e. newspaper, radio, TV 2.5% from Inland Region – I have not received any information from Council 13.3% from North Stradbroke island – Community meetings 38% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Bay Islander 2% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Phone calls to me

58.4 56.4

46.9

18.5 16.911.2 10 8.5

49

65

17

32

1

8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

In the mail /letterbox

drops

Quarterlyresidents'newsletter

fromCouncillor

The media ienewspaper,

radio, TV

Word ofmouth

CouncilWebsite

Our RedlandsCoast

magazine

Council socialmedia

(Facebook,Twitter,

Instagram)

Council emailor

eNewsletter

How do you get information from Council?

2019 2016

102

13. What is your preferred method of receiving information about Council?

The majority (50.7%) of respondents nominated mail/letter box drops as their preferred method of receiving information about Council. By comparison in 2016, 60% of respondents nominated mail/letter box drops.


Gender 2.3% of males – Phone calls to me

Age 18.2% aged 35-44 years – Council Website 10.9% aged 35-44 years – Council social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram)

Location 33.4% from Coastal Region – The media i.e. newspaper, radio, TV 13.1% from Coastal Region – Council Website 16% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Word of Mouth 26% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Bay Islander 6% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Phone calls to me 2% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Phone calls to Councillor

50.7

31.327.5

13

9

5 4.7 3.7 2.20

60

18

14

14

2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

In the mail /letterbox drops

Quarterlyresidents'

newsletter fromCouncillor

The media ienewspaper,

radio, TV

Council email oreNewsletter

Council Website Council socialmedia

(Facebook,Twitter,

Instagram)

Our RedlandsCoast magazine

Word of mouth Bay Islander Councillors

What is your preferred method of receiving information about Council?

2019 2016

103

14. Would you prefer to receive the Councillor Newsletter by email or in the post?

Almost two thirds (60%) of respondents would prefer to receive Council newsletters in the post.

Gender None

Age None

Location 45.5% from Coastal Region - Email

15. In the last 12 months, have you had any contact with Redland City Council?

56% of respondents had contact with Council in last 12months versus 42% in 2016, of respondents who had contact with Redland City Council in last 12 months.


In the post60%

Email40%

Would you prefer to receive the Council Newsletter by email or in the post?

Yes56%

No44%

In the last 12 months, have you had any contact with Redland City Council?

104

Nature of Contact with Council and Satisfaction Level 16. How did you make your last contact with Council?

Most respondents had made contact with Council via:

Customer Service Centre in person - 25.8% versus 11% in 2016

General enquiry line - 34.3% versus 45% in 2016

Online (email or website) – 11.9% versus 13% in 2016


Gender none

Age 25.4% aged 35-44 years – Online (email or Council’s website) 9.8% aged 65 years and over – at the library

Location 67.6% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Through general enquiry numbers 2.9% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – They called me

35.8 34.3

11.99.3

6.64.5 4.2 3.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

In person atCustomer Service

Centre

Through generalenquiry numbers

Online (email orCouncil's website)

Direct call to aCouncil officer

Through localCouncillor

Be letter or othercorrespondence

At the library In person(elsewhere)

How did you make your last contact with Council?

105

17. (If Yes) What was that contact about?

Main reasons respondents had contacted Council were to:

Pay rates – 22%

Animal registration - 14.3%

Building enquiry or approvals - 12.5%


Gender none

Age 6.6% aged 35-44 years – Drainage problems 8.9% aged 45-54 years – Parking / Parking on the mainland 13.7% aged 55-64 years – Rates enquiries 11.6% aged 65 years and over - Other

Location 14.7% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Parking / Parking on the mainland 8.8% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Road work/dust problem/workers parking across driveway 2.9% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Boating / Kayak / Water activities facilities

22

14.312.5

8.66.5 6.5 6.3 6 6 5.4

0

5

10

15

20

25

Pay rates Animalregistration

Buildingenquiry orapprovals

Trimmingtrees

Recreationalactivitiesenquiries

Animalcontrol

Dog/Cat/Foxissue

Rubbish /refuse

Make otherpayments

Ratesenquiries

Planningenquiry orapproval

What was the contact about?

106

18. How satisfied were you with how it was handled?

68% of respondent were ‘satisfied’ (37%) or ‘very satisfied (31%) with how their contact was handled. This was in comparison to in 2016, where 61% of respondents were satisfied with how contact was handled.


Gender none

Age none

Location 47.7% from Inland Region – Satisfied

Satisfied37%

Very satisfied31%

Very dissatisfied19%

Dissatisfied7%

Neither6%

How satisfied were you with how it was handled?

107

Disaster Management

19. Where do you get your disaster management warnings?

Key sources of information for disaster management warnings were:

TV news – 52% versus 39% in 2016

Text message – 28%

BOM Brisbane – 23%

ABC Radio – 19.8% versus 12% in 2016



Age 38.2% aged 35-44 years – BOM Brisbane 4.5% aged 35-44 years – State government social media channel 37% aged 45-54 years – Text messages 23.7% aged 65 years and over – Don’t know

Location 57.9% from Coastal Region – TV news – 7, 9, 10, ABC, SBS 27.4% from Coastal Region – BOM Brisbane 11.9% from Coastal Region – Morning programs (Sunrise, Today) 6% from Coastal Region – Local radio 28.1% from Inland Region – ABC radio 612 33.3% from North Stradbroke Island – Word of mouth 6.7% from North Stradbroke Island – Cars driving past with loud speakers 53.1% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Text messages 24.5% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Word of mouth 14.3% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Fire Brigade / Authorities 2% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Messenger/Facebook

Type of Information Required from Council

20. What topics do you want more information about from Council?

52

2823

19.8

9.9 7.9 5.4 5.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

TV News -7, 9,

10,ABC,SBS

Textmessages

BOMBrisbane

ABC Radio612

Don'tknow

Morningprograms(Sunrise,Today)

ABC News24

Word ofmouth

Where do you get your disaster management warnings?

108

The key areas respondents want more information from Council are in relation to:

General Council updates - 48.2% versus 12% in 2016

Roads and transport – 38.9% versus 15% in 2016

General development and building – 34.3% versus 21% in 2016


Gender none

Age 35.9% aged 55-64 years – Rates 31.3% aged 55-64 years - Water

Location 60% from North Stradbroke Island – Planning 53.3% from North Stradbroke Island – Major Developments 56.7% from North Stradbroke Island – Rates 46.7% from North Stradbroke Island – Community services 40% from North Stradbroke Island – Economic Development 53.1% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Planning 61.2% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Major Developments 51% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Rates 42.9% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Water 40.8% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Community Services 44.9% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Economic Development

48.2

38.934.3

31.327.5

1215

21

7 9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

General Council updates Roads and transport General developmentand building

Planning Major developments

What topics do you want more information about from Council?

2019 2016

109

Making Payments 22. What is your preferred method of making payments to Council for rates or other fees?

Almost half (47.2%) of respondents preferred to make payments to Council for rates or other fees via online (through bank account), compared to 65% who preferred this method in 2016.


Gender none

Age 17.3% aged 35-44 years – Never had to make a payment 57.4% aged 55-64 years – Online, through bank account 34.3% aged 65 years and over – Face to face

Location 26.7% from North Stradbroke Island – Post Office 10% from Southern Moreton Bay Islands – Post Office

47.2

21.4

10.2

65

15 14

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Online, through bankaccount

Face to face Over the phone

What is your preferred method of making payments to Council for rates or other fees?

2019 2016

110

23. (If not mentioned) Have you used Council's website to make an online payment in the last year?

16% of respondents had used Council’s website to make an online payment in the last year.


22.a) (If Yes) How satisfied were you with Council's online payment system?

84% of respondents were ‘satisfied’ (53%) or ‘very satisfied’ (31%) with Council’s online payment system. By comparison in 2016, 90% of respondents were satisfied with Council’s online payment system.


Gender none

Age none

Location 64.4% from Coastal Region - Satisfied

Council Events and Cultural Services 24. What events or cultural services at Council venues have you attended or used in the last year?

No84%

Yes16%

(If not mentioned) Have you used Council's website to make an online payment in the last year?

No Yes

Satisfied53%

Very satisfied31%

Neither7%

Very dissatisfied5%

Dissatisfied4%

(If Yes) How satisfied were you with Council's online payment system?

111


Gender 70.9% of males - None

Age 4.5% aged 35-44 years – Children’s events

Location 3.3% from North Stradbroke Island – Whale centre/Ceremony

Other events mentioned by respondents were:

Children's events 1.3%

Concerts at Cleveland 1.3%

Markets/ night markets 1.3%

Quandamooka Festival 1.3%

Anzac Day 1%

Australia Day / Citizenship 1%

Indigescape 0.8%

Blues Festival 0.7%

Curlew count 0.7%

Strawberry festival 0.7%

Classes / Events at the library

0.7%

Stradbroke chamber of music festival

0.3%

Other 0.3%

Blue light disco 0.2%

Whale Centre/Ceremony 0.2%

25. If none - why is that?

Lack of time and being too busy were the key reasons, respondents did not attend Council events or cultural services. Lack of awareness and having no interest were secondary reasons for not attending these events.

65.2

8.5 4.7 3.7 2.8 2.7 2.3 1.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

None Concert atRPAC

ChristmasCarols

Art Gallery /Art Show

Fireworks NYE Redfest DonaldSimpson

Centre events

Informationareas,

including hallfunctions and

publicmeetings

Council Events or Cultural Services Attended

112

SUMMARY This 2019 Redland City Council Community Satisfaction Survey clearly shows the extent to which Council is currently performing and is perceived to be meeting expectations of the community it serves. While this study can be used as a stand-alone report on the situation in Redland City Council, as the community sees it, it can also be compared against an external standard - the 2017 LGAQ State-wide Report of results for Queensland, and Metro-Fringe Councils. Obviously, for reviewing performance, up-dating the Corporate Plan, and determining priorities, the most important information is the actual detail in Redland City Council’s own study. However, taking account of an external measurement criterion is important, as it provides Council with a relative comparison measure of its performance. Overall Performance To gain an understanding of overall performance, this survey method uses a weighted aggregated total performance rating to measure overall satisfaction which is calculated by summarising all Performance ratings of each of the 37 Responsibility Areas into one (1) number, weighted by the relative Importance of each Area. It is computed by using all Importance scores, all Performance scores and all weighted Performance Indicators for all 37 Responsibility Areas and calculation of the weighted Total Performance Index from the resultant totals, using the standard formula. It is close to, but not the same as, the average of all Performance means expressed as a share of the Optimum performance score. This ‘summary number’ is called the ‘Average Total Performance Index’ (TPI) or the Aggregated Overall Performance (Weighted). Average Total Performance Index (TPI) for the survey was calculated at 67.65% By comparison, with LGAQ State-wide survey Metro Fringe averages in 2017, TPIs of 69.39% and 69.18% were achieved, so Redlands TPI of 67.65% for 2019 is tracking just below both Queensland wide and Metro Fringe TPIs. Total Performance Indexes can be examined from two general perspectives - the composition (i.e. the average scores for the individual Importance and Performance scores for each of the Responsibility Areas in each of the Themes) and a comparison of the overall index scores over time (for future ongoing tracking surveys).

113

COMPARISON OF PERFORMANCE INDICES The following charts show comparison of the Total Performance Index (TPI) for Redland City Council 2019 with LGAQ 2017.

The chart above, shows the Redland City Council TPI (67.65%) for 2019 compared to TPI for the 5 key themes for both Metro Fringe and Queensland State-wide in the 2017 survey. As can be seen from the chart above (compared to Metro Fringe and Queensland State-wide surveys), Redland City Council is above the overall average TPI in 2 out of the 5 areas namely:

Qualities of Council (72.04%)

Community Lifestyle Services (76.01%) For Redland City Council Managing the City TPI (58.31%), it is well below the Metro Fringe TPI (65.92%) and LGAQ State-wide (65.65%). For the remaining two themes – Basic Services and Infrastructure and Customer Services and Communications, Redland City Council is generally on par with Metro Fringe counterparts and LGAQ State-wide. In terms of importance mean scores as compared with results for the LGAQ 2017 survey for both Queensland State-wide and Metro Fringe Councils, these results are also summarised below as they are significant. What is clear is that Redland City Council respondents have placed far greater emphasis on importance of responsibilities areas across all

68.81%

76.01%

58.31%

66.14%

72.04%

67.65%

69.24%

71.96%

65.92%

66.86%

70.13%

69.18%

70.57%

72.02%

65.65%

66.38%

69.45%

69.39%

0.00% 10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%

Basic Services / Infrastructure



Customer Services and Communications


OVERALL WEIGHTED PERFORMANCE INDEX

Summary of Performance Indices

LGAQ STATEWIDE - 2017 LGAQ (METRO FRINGE) SURVEY - 2017 REDLAND 2019

114

five themes compared to their counterpart Councils across the State. This needs to be considered when reviewing performance scores for Council and community expectations of performance for Redland City Council service delivery.

4.28

3.95

4.21

4.26

4.30

4.18

3.92

4.18

4.26

4.35

4.48

4.11

4.44

4.57

4.57

3.40 3.60 3.80 4.00 4.20 4.40 4.60 4.80





Quality of Council

Importance Mean Comparison - LGAQ versus Redland City Council


115

Areas Rated as Being ‘Poor’ on Performance There are 18 Responsibility Areas where there are the greatest gaps between Performance and Importance - ranked inversely by the level of rated Performance.

These 18 Responsibility Areas have been selected on the basis that

their Importance rating is at least 3.96 (on the border-line of ‘4’= ‘Important’), and

their Performance is more than 1.5% below Average (where Average Total Performance Index is 67.65%). The size of the job to be done can be defined in two ways:

Move the Performance Mean from the current rating up to the Optimum level (‘a score of ‘5’). Current Performance as a share of Optimum is shown in the Share of Optimum column. The difference between ‘Share of Optimum’ and 100.0% shows how actual performance has to improve to achieve a score of ‘5’.

Achieve Equilibrium between Performance and Importance by closing the ‘gap’ between their respective Mean scores. If the gap between the average ratings for Importance and Performance were to close, there would be a significant improvement in community perceptions of Overall Performance.

65.7%

65.1%

64.2%

64.1%

64.0%

63.1%

62.2%

61.6%

61.2%

59.7%

59.3%

58.4%

58.4%

56.6%

56.6%

56.1%

53.9%

53.6%

52.0% 55.0% 58.0% 61.0% 64.0% 67.0%

Heritage Protection



Road Maintenance


Road Construction

Revenue-raising



Public Transport


Consulting the community



Traffic Management


Parking Facilities

Town Planning

Lowest Performers

116

Areas Rated of Highest Performance There are 15 Responsibility Areas (out of the total of 37) on which Council performed best in relation to their judged importance. In this case, ‘best’ is defined as having:


Performance more than 1.5% above Average (where Average Performance is 67.65%- the (calculated) Average Total Performance Index).

85.3%

82.1%

81.0%

80.4%

77.5%

76.2%

75.6%

75.4%

72.4%

72.3%

72.0%

71.3%

71.3%

70.3%

69.9%

60.0% 65.0% 70.0% 75.0% 80.0% 85.0% 90.0%


Waste Management

Sewerage

Water Supply

Customer Service




Shopping Facilities

Community Safety


Street Lighting

Community Health

Community Services

Pet/Animal Control

Highest Performers

117

Areas of Average Performance

There is only one Responsibility Areas (out of the total of 37) on which Council has received an average score which is defined as having:


Performance not more than 1.5% below or above Average (where Average Performance 67.65% - the (calculated) Average Total Performance Index).

68.3%

65.0% 66.0% 67.0% 68.0% 69.0%

Informing theCommunity

Average Performer

118

Areas of Least Importance Only 3 of the 37 Responsibility Areas have not been considered in formulating the previous three lists (Highest Performers, Lowest Performers and Average Performers) because they did not have an Importance rating greater than 3.96, or 4 when rounded (i.e.= ‘Important’). Nevertheless, they do exist, and are listed below - ranked by their Performance score, as used in the previous three tables. Despite their Importance rating being regarded as fairly low, by the Community at large, Councils cannot avoid expending resources upon them, as they are very Important to some members of the community (e.g. Sporting & Recreational Facilities is rated as ‘important’ by 48.7% of respondents). Hence, the detailed data on these particular areas has to be examined, to formulate priorities - as these show the proportions of the community who have varying priorities.

The High Priority Areas The Responsibility Areas, that have the largest ‘gaps’ between their scores for Performance and their scores for Importance, also appear near the top of the Importance ranking and at the bottom of the Performance ranking. These are the Areas where residents are expressing high levels of dissatisfaction with Performance levels and are awarding strong ‘should try harder’ scores. Key feedback on other aspects

The customer satisfaction research also comprised some additional questions about various other aspects of Council activity which Council was interested in receiving feedback on. Where appropriate comparisons were made with results from Council’s research undertaken in 2016. It is useful to highlight some key feedback on these other aspects, some of which validates finding from the customer satisfaction research component of this survey.

Firstly, for the questions asked around perceptions of Council, it was clear that respondents felt a strong sense of community, with high levels (over 90%) of agreement was in relation to the following aspects:

‘Redlands is a good place to live’ (97%)

‘Would recommend Redlands Coast as a place to live’ (92.3%)

‘Feel a good sense of belonging here’ (90.3%)

77.1%

76.9%

65.9%

60.0% 62.0% 64.0% 66.0% 68.0% 70.0% 72.0% 74.0% 76.0% 78.0%



Cycleways

Least Important (<3.96)

119

However, highest level of disagreement (81.3%) on a key aspect of Council’s management, was in relation to respondent opposition to apartment, terrace houses, small lots etc as they do not appeal as a housing choice. This aligns with respondent feedback about how they think Council is managing the City, with almost two thirds (63%) indicating that they did not think that Council was doing a good job at managing growth and in particular providing housing choice. This view is also validated in the ratings that Council received for this theme in the customer satisfaction component of this research. This is obviously a key area that the community is concerned about and needs to be addressed to significantly improve satisfaction levels in the future.

In terms of specific questions on Council performance, just over half (54%) of respondents, when considering performance of Council felt ‘about the same’ in terms of level of positivity about Council and 7% of respondents were generally ‘more positive’ about Council’s performance. For the 37% of respondents who were less positive about Council, their reason primarily related to:

Council not providing services in their area

Overdevelopment - allowing too many houses/apartments

Lack of infrastructure – too much traffic and parking congestion

Lack of leadership – poor decision making and not listening to the community

Loss of rural environment, including impact on natural environment and loss of habitat

These reasons for dissatisfaction also further validates low performing areas, highlighted in the customer satisfaction component of the research.

Community understanding of Aboriginal Heritage was another key area that Council has been tracking community awareness, and for this survey 83% of respondents had ‘strong knowledge’ (16%) or ‘were aware’ (67%) of local Aboriginal community. This is in comparison to 2016, where 76% of respondents had a strong level of knowledge or awareness of the Aboriginal community of Redlands.

Providing information to the community was another key tracking area for this survey and as in 2016, the main source of information was from mail/letter box drops – 58.4% in 2019 versus 49% in 2016. However, the popularity of receiving information from Council website decreased from 32% in 2016 to 16.9% in 2019.

The majority (50.7%) of respondents nominated mail/letter box drops as their preferred method of receiving information about Council. By comparison in 2016, 60% of respondents nominated mail/letter box drops.

120

Performance Improvement Targets This charts shows a list of targets for improvement where elements have performance ratings 1.5% or more below the average performance assessment of 67.65%, but which also have relatively high (=/>4) levels of importance. There are others close to the cut-off not shown in this figure, although these are noted in the detailed findings.

These elements can be considered as priorities for enhancement of overall performance. Attention to these elements will lead to the greatest overall increase in the weighted performance indices. This 2019 customer satisfaction survey provides a solid foundation for Redland City Council to review its targets for improving its performance ratings. The results show that Redlands is tracking just below its Metro Fringe counterparts, and also for Queensland, in term of overall performance when compared with LGAQ 2017 survey results. Albeit, this comparison is limited given, as previously noted, that Redlands chose to slightly modify the standard responsibility areas tracked by the LGAQ survey. However, this research will enable future ongoing tracking studies to be undertaken by Redland City Council, to monitor the degree of success it is having in reaching their performance improvement targets.

65.7%

65.1%

64.2%

64.1%

64.0%

63.1%

62.2%

61.6%

61.2%

59.7%

59.3%

58.4%

58.4%

56.6%

56.6%

56.1%

53.9%

53.6%

67.65%

50.0% 55.0% 60.0% 65.0% 70.0%

Heritage Protection



Road Maintenance


Road Construction

Revenue-raising



Public Transport


Consulting the community



Traffic Management


Parking Facilities

Town Planning

Total Performance Index

Performance Improvement Targets

community satisfaction survey · market facts, was commissioned by the redland city council in...

Documents