hamilton city council residents survey report · the latest quarter‟s csi score of 73.8 is 0.9...

Hamilton City Council Residents Survey Report

April 2012 to March 2013

INTERNATIONAL

RESEARCH CONSULTANTS LTD

STRATEGIC PLANNING & BRAND SOLUTIONS

Table of Contents March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013)

HCC Residents Survey of 142

Table of Contents

2.0 Satisfaction and Usage Tables .................................................................... 6

2.1 Satisfaction with Facilities and Services .................................................................. 6

2.2 Satisfaction with ‘Customer Choice’ Facilities ........................................................ 6

2.3 Satisfaction with ‘No Customer Choice’ Services and Facilities ........................... 8

2.4 Comparisons to Last year ........................................................................................ 14

2.5 Comparisons of March 2013 versus December 2012 quarters ............................ 16

2.6 Percentage of respondents satisfied ...................................................................... 18

2.7 Usage of Facilities and Services ............................................................................. 23

3.0 Most Important Issues ................................................................................ 29

3.1 Most important issues comparison to previous years ......................................... 31

3.2 Most important issues this quarter ......................................................................... 33

4.0 Specific Questions ...................................................................................... 34

4.1 Overall Performance of Council .............................................................................. 35

4.2 Council Staff .............................................................................................................. 43

4.3. Elected Members ....................................................................................................... 46

4.4 Hamilton as a place to live ....................................................................................... 50

4.4a Pride in Hamilton’s look and feel ............................................................................ 53

4.5. Residential Rates ...................................................................................................... 54

4.6 Quality of Council facilities and services ............................................................... 59

4.7 Involvement in Decision Making ............................................................................. 63

4.8 Opportunities for involvement in decision making ............................................... 67

4.9 Council’s provision of information ......................................................................... 70

4.10 Business Ownership: Satisfaction with Services .................................................. 72

4.11 Personal Safety in Hamilton .................................................................................... 73

4.12 Noise Pollution in Hamilton ..................................................................................... 77

4.13 Graffiti......................................................................................................................... 78

4.14 Hamilton’s Central Business District at night time ............................................... 81

4.15 Garden Place in Central Hamilton ........................................................................... 82

5.0 Special Interest Topics ............................................................................... 83

6.0 Background ................................................................................................. 93

7.0 Sample Profile ........................................................................................... 102

8.0 Summary Tables........................................................................................ 112

March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013) Executive Summary


Hamilton City Council Residents Survey Report

Executive Summary Satisfaction with Facilities and Services (Page 6)

For the period April 2012 – March 2013 there were 51 increases and 18 decreases in CSI scores compared to the July 2011 – June 2012 period but most moves were small. Among Customer Choice

1 facilities and

services there were 24 increases and 8 decreases. Among the No Customer Choice

2 facilities and

services there were 27 increases and 10 decreases and two factors were unchanged.

On a quarterly basis, there were 51 increases in CSI scores and 18 decreases for the March 2013 quarter versus the December 2012 quarter.

Increases and decreases in satisfaction on a Moving Annual Total (MAT) basis with facilities and services

Increases in satisfaction scores

The largest increases compared to the July 2011 – June 2012 period were:

an 11.8 point increase in satisfaction for the way Council staff handled the noise complaint, (CSI

score 82.1).

a 10.6 point increase for the outcome of the noise complaint, (CSI score 80.4),

a 4.7 point increase for Porritt Stadium (CSI score 73.7)

a 4.1 point increase for Gallagher Aquatic Centre (CSI score 77.3).

Decreases in satisfaction scores

There were 18 decreases in the CSI score for April 2012 – March 2013 results compared to the July 2011 – June 2012 period.

The largest decreases were:

A 5.0 point decrease for the Public Toilets (CSI score of 67.8).

a 2.6 point decrease for City Beautification (includes planting of traffic islands, street trees and the tree-scape of the city in general) (CSI score of 74.3).

A 2.3 point decrease for the Visitor Information Centre in Garden Place (CSI score of 84.3)

A 2.0 point decrease for the Household Refuse Collection (CSI score 86.3).

Highest and lowest ranked facilities and services

Highest ranking facilities and services on a MAT basis:

The St Andrews Library is in the top position with a CSI score of 93.8, ahead of the continuity of the water supply (CSI score 89.9) and Hamilton Gardens (CSI score 88.1).

HIGHEST RANKING FACILITIES AND

SERVICES – TOP FIVE

CSI score

Jul 11 – Jun 12

Apr 12 – Mar 13

St Andrews Library overall 93.8

Continuity of Water Supply 90.1 89.9

Hamilton Gardens 87.3 88.1

Hillcrest Library overall 87.6

Household Refuse Collection 88.3 86.3

Lowest ranking facilities and services on a MAT basis:

Getting around in peak traffic is rated the lowest followed by the opportunities Council provides for community involvement in decision making.

LOWEST RANKING FACILITIES AND

SERVICES – BOTTOM FIVE

CSI score

Jul 11 – Jun 12

Apr 12 – Mar 13

Getting around in peak traffic 56.4 55.4

The opportunities Council provides for community involvement in decision making

61.1 61.6

The overall performance of the Elected Members of Council

61.4 62.0

Hamilton's CBD at night 65.0 63.3

Central City car parking in general

62.4 63.5

Customer Choice facilities and services.

St Andrews Library, Hamilton Gardens, Hillcrest Library, Garden Place (Central) Library, Hamilton Zoo, and the Visitor Information Centre, are all rated as an exceptional performance.

Hamilton’s Central Business District at night is rated as needing significant improvement.

No Customer Choice facilities and services.

The continuity, clarity and pressure of the water supply, the household refuse services and kerbside recyclable collection, Hamilton Park Cemetery, Hamilton as a place to live, the Wastewater System, Council night patrol team to make the Central City safer in the evenings and weekends, Council's programme to clean up Graffiti, the Council Staff, the handling and outcome of noise complaints, getting around in non-peak traffic and the Parks and Gardens in the City are all rated as an exceptional performance.

The ease of getting around the city in peak traffic times, is rated with a CSI score that reflects the need for significant improvement.


of 142 HCC Residents Survey

Usage of Facilities and Services (Page 23)

For the period April 2012 – March 2013, there were almost as many increases (20) versus decreases (23) in usage of facilities although most changes are small. Generally, the level of usage is similar to those recorded in previous years.

Increases in usage of facilities and services

a 9.0% increase for Claudelands Events Centre

a 9.0% increase for Hamilton City Council Website

a 5.0% increase for the Garden Place (Central) Library

INCREASES IN USAGE OF FACILITIES

AND SERVICES

% Usage

Jul 11 – Jun 12

Apr 12 – Mar 13

Claudelands Events Centre 48.7 57.7

Hamilton City Council Website 40.3 49.3

Garden Place (Central) Library 45.0 50.0

Kerbside Recycling 91.9 95.9

Decreases in usage of facilities and services

a 12.0% decrease for Alexandra Street underground car park

a 9.2% decrease for Any Library

a 4.8% decrease for Any Community Library

a 4.8% decrease for the bus passenger facilities at the Hamilton transport Centre

DECREASES IN USAGE OF FACILITIES

AND SERVICES

% Usage

Jul 11 – Jun 12

Apr 12 – Mar 13

Alexandra Street underground car park 37.0 25.0

Any Library 70.4 61.2

Community Library 55.5 50.7

Hamilton Transport Centre 43.3 38.5

Some services like the kerbside recyclable collection, pedestrian facilities, Parks and Gardens, Hamilton Lake, and Hamilton Gardens were used by the vast majority of respondents.

Many services were used by over 50% of the sample. Other facilities and services provided by the Council like the Hamilton City Leisure Centre (YMCA), Glenview Library, St Andrews Library, making a noise complaint, and The Meteor were used by a

small proportion of the population.

Some facilities (like kerbside recycling) were used on a far more frequent basis (daily or weekly) than others which are used once per year e.g. Founders Theatre (43% used but 42% used once per year).

Other facilities like The Meteor and Councils Dog Control Service were used by a small proportion of the population (14%) and also used on an infrequent basis e.g. 13% used once per year.

Most important Issues Council should be looking at (Page 29)

Respondents were asked „What, in your opinion, are the three main issues that Council should be looking at?‟ This question was asked as an open question with

the answers grouped together for analysis purposes.

On a MAT basis, over a quarter of the sample (35.8%) mentioned a transportation related issue as one of their three most important issues (i.e. anyone who mentioned either roads, traffic, public transport, parking, or road safety).

A sixth of the respondents (17.4%) mentioned a Safety/Law and Order related issue as one of the three most important issues (i.e. anyone who mentioned Law and Order, crime, safety, or graffiti).

Concerns with Roads (18.0%) then Rates (15.1%) were rated as the main individual issues while Expenditure (14.6%) was the third most commonly mentioned issue and the City Centre (13.1%) was fourth. They were followed by Law and Order (12.8%), Debt (12.3%), Safety (10.1%), Parking (9.1%), and Council concerns (9.0%).

Similar to the MAT basis, the main issues for the March 2013 quarter were transportation issues (31%), then law and order / safety issues (19%), followed by concerns with the city centre (19%), concerns with expenditure (17%), City Development / Planning (14%), and rates (13%).

The largest difference this quarter was a 5.7% increase in mention of concerns with the city centre (19% versus 13% on a MAT basis) and a 5.7% decrease in mention of City Development / Planning (14% versus 8% on a MAT basis). The largest decrease was a 4.9% mention of any transportation issue (31% this quarter versus 36% on a MAT basis) and a 4.8% decrease in mention of debt (7% this quarter versus 12% on a MAT basis).

Overall Satisfaction with Council (Page 35)

Two thirds of the respondents (69%) rated their satisfaction with the Overall Performance of Council with scores that reflect satisfaction (scores of 7 – 10).

The CSI score was 72.2, up 0.7 points from the July 2011 – June 2012 period.



The latest quarter‟s CSI score of 73.8 is 0.9 points higher than last quarter. It appears that CSI scores have been steadily improving since December 2011.

The respondents were asked why they rated the Overall Performance of Council the way they did. On a MAT basis (April 2012 – March 2013), the main positive comments focused around the feeling that Council was doing a good job or working well for the city (10%) or on the staff (10%) or good service (10%). The main negative comment had to do with concerns with specific services (13%), financial concerns (12%), and concerns with the Elected Members (9%).

The main positive comments for the March quarter focused around the feeling that Council was doing a good job or working well for the city (12%), the fact there were no problems (9%), good staff (7%), and good service (6%). The main negative comments for the quarter had to do with concerns with specific services (13% versus 13% on a MAT basis), financial concerns (10% versus 12% on a MAT basis), and concerns with the Elected Members (7% versus 9% on a MAT basis). The largest difference between the March quarter and on a MAT basis was a 3.6% decrease in mention of good service. The largest increase was a 1.6% rise in mention of doing a good job or working well for the city.

Elected Members (Page 46)

Under half of the respondents (44%) were satisfied with the Overall Performance of the Elected Members of Council in the past year (i.e. the Mayor and Councillors) (scores of 7 – 10) while an eighth of the respondents (12%) were actually dissatisfied.

The CSI score was 62.0, up 0.6 points from the July 2011 - June 2012 result. This is still the second lowest recorded since 2004 and is on par with the downward trend in CSI scores since 2005.

The latest quarter‟s CSI score of 64.8 is up 2.4 points from the previous quarterly result and 5.8 points above the low recorded in June 2012. There appears to be a rising trend in the CSI Scores for the past three quarters.

Value from Rates (Page 54)

Two thirds of the respondents (69%) said they paid residential rates, including 3% who paid both residential and commercial rates. The balance of the sample (31%) said they did not pay rates.

The majority of respondents who paid residential rates (n = 535) thought they received good value for their residential rates, (60%) (scores of 7 – 10) although only 5% rated the value for money with a score of 10. Only 9.4% of those who paid residential rates thought they received poor value (scores 0 – 3).

The Value Index has decreased 1.4 points from June 2012. The Index of 65.1 for April 2012 – March 2013 is the lowest recorded since 2002. This is below the downward trend seen over the previous eight years.

Quality of Facilities and Services (Page 59)

Two thirds of the respondents, (65%) felt the quality of Council facilities and services had improved in the past year, including 11% who rated this with a score of 10 (greatly improved). Only 14 respondents (1.9%) felt the quality had deteriorated and only four respondents (0.6%) felt it had greatly deteriorated (score of 0). The Index is 71.3, down 0.6 points from the July 2011 – June 2012 result.

Council’s provision of information (Page 70)

Over half of the respondents (56%) were satisfied with the Council providing adequate information to the community about its services, facilities, projects and plans (scores 7 – 10). A fifth of the subgroup (19%) rated this with a score of 9 or 10 (exceeded expectations).

A number of respondents (7%) were dissatisfied with the Council providing this type of information (scores 0 – 3) while 28% rated this as neutral (scores 4 - 6). The CSI score is 68.0, up 1.6 points from the July 2011 – June 2012 result. The current CSI score is in the middle of the range and is above the declining trend line.

Topical Questions (Page 83)

For the March 2013 quarter (n = 175) the topical questions included respondents‟ attitudes as to whether Hamilton City Council should continue or stop adding fluoride to Hamilton‟s public water supply.

Half of the respondents, (50.2%) said they would like Council to CONTINUE adding fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply. Conversely, a third of the respondents (31%) would like Council to STOP adding fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply. A sixth of the respondents (18%) did not know if they wanted Council to continue or stop adding fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply.

Satisfaction with Facilities and Services March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013)


2.0 Satisfaction and Usage Tables

2.1 Satisfaction with Facilities and Services

Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI scores) The Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI scores)

1 , (a weighted score across the satisfaction scale) is used to reflect

respondent satisfaction with the various facilities and services provided by Council.

During 2003 the Management of Hamilton City Council developed a framework to interpret the CSI scores for the facilities and services measured within this and other customer satisfaction projects. Refer Section 6.0 Background (page 84) for more information on this.

CUSTOMER CHOICE CSI SCORES NO CUSTOMER CHOICE CSI SCORES

84 or higher Exceptional performance 79 or higher

82 - 83 Excellent performance 77 – 78

78 – 81 Very good performance 73 – 76

73 – 77 Good performance, but with potential for improvement

68 – 72

67 – 72 Fair: Needs improvement 62 – 67

66 or lower Needs significant improvement 61 or lower

2.2 Satisfaction with ‘Customer Choice’ Facilities

On a moving annual total basis, there were 51 increases and 18 decreases in CSI scores compared to the July 2011 – June 2012 period but most moves were small. Twelve new factors were added to the questionnaire in the September 2012 quarter. Among Customer Choice services and facilities there were 24 increases and 8 decreases.

CUSTOMER CHOICE FACILITIES AND SERVICES: PERFORMANCE INTERPRETATION

Jul 08 – Jun 09

Jul 09 – Jun 10

Jul 10 – Jun 11

Jul 11 – Jun 12

Apr 12 – Mar 13

Comparisons to June 2012

Decreases Increases

Exceptional Performance (CSI Score 84+)


Opening hours Garden Place Library 89.9

Hamilton Gardens 87.4 88.0 88.2 87.3 88.1 0.9


Garden Place Library overall 82.2 83.8 81.9 83.1 86.1 2.9

Hamilton Zoo 82.8 84.0 85.6 83.6 85.9 2.3

Visitor Information Centre 78.6 84.6 83.7 86.7 84.3 -2.3

Opening hours Glenview Library 84.1

1 The Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) converts each respondents answer across the satisfaction scale to a score out of 100. The CSI score is 10

times the average individual score based on the 11 point satisfaction scale (0 = very dissatisfied to 10 = very satisfied).

March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013)Satisfaction with Facilities and Services



Jul 08 – Jun 09

Jul 09 – Jun 10

Jul 10 – Jun 11

Jul 11 – Jun 12

Apr 12 – Mar 13


Decreases Increases

Excellent Performance (CSI Score 82-83)

Glenview Library overall 83.4

Hamilton Organic Centre 84.5 82.6 82.8 79.2 83.1 3.9

Opening hours Hillcrest Library 82.9

The Hamilton City bus service 77.1 81.4 77.1 83.1 82.3 -0.8

Hamilton Lake 79.1 80.4 81.3 80.9 82.0 1.1

Refuse Transfer Station 81.7 81.8 81.8 80.6 81.9 1.4

Opening hours St Andrews Library 81.8

Opening hours Chartwell Library 81.6

Very Good Performance (CSI Score 78-81)

Chartwell Library overall 81.2

City Walkways 78.6 78.7 79.2 80.7 81.0 0.3

Claudelands Events Centre 65.7 66.4 69.9 80.5 80.7 0.2

Hamilton Transport Centre 76.6 79.2 75.5 80.9 80.5 -0.4

Waikato Stadium 81.5 78.5 77.8 79.4 80.5 1.1

Dinsdale Library overall 80.1

ArtsPost 78.6 80.1 79.4 76.9 80.0 3.1

Multi-level car park in Knox Street 76.9 76.1 77.0 75.9 79.5 3.6

Waikato Museum 75.6 78.7 79.5 78.9 78.6 -0.3

City News 78.4 79.1 76.7 76.0 77.8 1.8

Good Performance , but with potential for improvement (CSI Score 73-77)

Gallagher Aquatic Centre 77.5 76.2 76.5 73.3 77.3 4.1

Seddon Park 78.1 78.3 77.3 76.1 77.3 1.2

Opening hours Dinsdale Library 77.2

Leisure Centre (YMCA) 63.4 63.6 70.4 73.1 76.9 3.8

Waterworld 78.4 77.8 76.2 77.2 76.8 -0.4

Sports Areas 70.7 70.9 71.4 73.9 74.7 0.8

Hamilton City Council Website 74.7 79.8 78.0 74.9 74.5 -0.4

Founders Theatre 75.5 76.5 74.7 73.5 74.3 0.8

Fair: Needs Improvement (CSI Score 67-72)

Porritt Stadium 75.3 73.6 66.8 69.1 73.7 4.7

Clarence Street Theatre 70.4 72.2 72.5 70.6 72.4 1.8

Neighbourhood Park 70.3 71.5 69.6 70.2 72.4 2.2

Alexandra Street underground car park 66.2 69.6 69.4 70.5 1.1

Off-street car parking 67.5 66.6 69.7 70.4 69.8 -0.6

The Meteor 68.4 74.9 67.6 69.6 69.8 0.2

Playground equipment 62.2 68.8 68.3 67.1 68.7 1.6

Garden Place 68.6 71.1 63.8 65.4 68.3 2.9

Needs Significant Improvement (CSI Score 66 or lower)

Hamilton's CBD at night 63.1 66.9 67.2 65.0 63.3 -1.7



2.3 Satisfaction with ‘No Customer Choice’ Services and Facilities Among the No Customer Choice services and facilities, there were 27 increases and 10 decreases and two factors were unchanged.

NO CUSTOMER CHOICE FACILITIES AND SERVICES: PERFORMANCE INTERPRETATION

Jul 08 – Jun 09

Jul 09 – Jun 10

Jul 10 – Jun 11

Jul 11 – Jun 12

Apr 12 – Mar 13


Decreases Increases

Exceptional Performance (CSI score 79+)

Continuity of Water Supply 87.5 88.5 89.5 90.1 89.9 -0.2

Household Refuse Collection 86.3 87.1 86.5 88.3 86.3 -2.0

Kerbside Recyclable Collection 84.6 84.6 85.5 86.2 85.4 -0.8

Hamilton Park Cemetery 84.4 81.5 82.7 84.3 86.3 2.0

Clarity of the Water 81.9 84.9 85.3 82.4 84.2 1.7

Water Pressure 84.6 85.3 85.7 84.1 83.8 -0.3

Hamilton as a place to live 83.0 82.4 83.2 83.4 83.6 0.2

Wastewater System 82.9 82.2 84.7 83.1 82.7 -0.4

Night patrol in the Central City 77.5 78.6 79.0 82.4 83.7 1.3

Council's Graffiti clean up 72.5 78.2 78.4 79.9 83.0 3.1

Handling of noise complaint 80.5 74.1 81.4 70.4 82.1 11.8

Council staff 79.8 81.7 81.5 81.8 81.0 -0.8

Outcome of noise complaint 76.5 70.8 73.9 69.8 80.4 10.6

Getting around in non peak traffic 80.6 81.7 80.8 80.7 79.7 -0.9

Parks and Gardens in the City 79.0 78.9 77.9 78.1 79.8 1.7

Excellent Performance (CSI Score 77 - 78)

Street lighting in general 76.5 77.7 77.1 77.4 77.6 0.2

Taste and odour of the water 74.3 79.4 77.7 77.3 77.5 0.2

Pedestrian Facilities 74.9 77.3 76.3 75.3 76.8 1.5

Street lighting in your area 73.5 75.3 74.9 74.2 76.9 2.7

Dog Control Service 78.7 80.5 82.5 75.8 76.8 1.0

Very Good Performance (CSI Score 73 - 76)

Streets where you live 76.2 75.3 76.5 75.5 76.3 0.8

Footpaths in general 75.5 77.1 76.5 76.1 76.2 0.2

Footpaths in your area 75.2 76.1 76.7 76.0 76.2 0.2

Locations of crossings 75.4 77.1 75.6 75.8 75.9 0.1

Traffic Management 76.2 74.8 74.7 74.9 74.9

City Beautification 76.6 73.5 74.1 76.9 74.3 -2.6

Pedestrian Safety 74.1 75.4 74.5 72.7 74.2 1.5

Stormwater System 74.7 77.7 76.5 73.9 73.9

Streets in general 73.5 73.4 73.7 72.4 73.8 1.4

Good Performance, but with potential for improvement (CSI Score 68 - 72)

Overall performance of Council 74.9 76.4 74.2 71.5 72.2 0.7

Process for Council decision making 63.2 62.9 73.3 69.6 71.5 1.9

The outcome of submissions etc 60.6 58.1 71.2 69.7 69.9 0.2

Provision of information 66.7 68.6 68.0 66.4 68.0 1.5

Public Toilets 68.5 69.6 70.3 72.8 67.8 -5.0

March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013)Satisfaction with Facilities and Services


Jul 08 – Jun 09

Jul 09 – Jun 10

Jul 10 – Jun 11

Jul 11 – Jun 12

Apr 12 – Mar 13


Decreases Increases

Fair: Needs Improvement (CSI Score 62 - 67)

Cycling facilities 66.5 62.6 68.5 64.9 66.0 1.2

Central City car parking in general 63.9 58.8 63.9 62.4 63.5 1.1

Elected Members 70.6 71.5 67.9 61.4 62.0 0.5

Involvement in Council decision making 60.5 62.8 59.9 61.1 61.6 0.6


Getting around in peak traffic 55.9 55.7 57.7 56.4 55.4 -1.0



Customer Choice – Exceptional and Excellent Performance In the September quarter, each individual library was included in this monitor, where previously these were collectively reported as Community Libraries. Usage of the individual community libraries for September 2012 – March 2013 ranges from 23 respondents for Glenview Library and St Andrews Library up to 52 for Chartwell Library. The individual libraries are included in the charts this quarter.

Similar to the previous results, there are a number of facilities and services that are rated as providing exceptional customer satisfaction in the Customer Choice environment. The St Andrews Library, Hamilton Gardens, Hillcrest Library, Garden Place (Central) Library, Hamilton Zoo, and the Visitor Information Centre, are all rated as an exceptional performance.

84.6

84.0

83.8

88.0

83.7

85.6

81.9

88.2

86.7

83.6

83.1

87.3

84.3

85.9

86.1

87.6

88.1

93.8

-2.3

2.3

2.9

0.9

0 20 40 60 80 100

Visitor Information Centre

Hamilton Zoo

Garden Place Library overall

Hillcrest Library overall

Hamilton Gardens

St Andrews Library overall

Apr 2012 - Mar 2013 Jul 2011 - Jun 2012 Jul 2010 - Jun 2011 Jul 2009 - Jun 2010

CSI Difference Apr 12/Mar 13 - Jul 11/Jun 12

Decreases IncreasesExceptional Performance

(CSI Score 84+)

March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013) Satisfaction with Facilities and Services


No Customer Choice – Exceptional Performance In the No Customer Choice environment, there are also a number of facilities and services that are rated as providing exceptional customer satisfaction. The continuity, clarity and pressure of the water supply, the household refuse services and kerbside recyclable collection, Hamilton Park Cemetery, Hamilton as a place to live, the Wastewater System, Council night patrol team to make the Central City safer in the evenings and weekends, Council's programme to clean up Graffiti, the Council Staff, the handling and outcome of noise complaints, getting around in non-peak traffic and the Parks and Gardens in the City are all rated as an exceptional performance.

78.9

81.7

70.8

81.7

74.1

78.2

78.6

82.2

82.4

85.3

84.9

81.5

84.6

87.1

88.5

77.9

80.8

73.9

81.5

81.4

78.4

79.0

84.7

83.2

85.7

85.3

82.7

85.5

86.5

89.5

78.1

80.7

69.8

81.8

70.4

79.9

82.4

83.1

83.4

84.1

82.4

84.3

86.2

88.3

90.1

79.8

79.7

80.4

81.0

82.1

83.0

83.7

82.7

83.6

83.8

84.2

86.3

85.4

86.3

89.9

-0.9

-0.8

-0.4

-0.3

-0.8

-2.0

-0.2

1.7

10.6

11.8

3.1

1.3

0.2

1.7

2.0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Parks and Gardens in the City

Getting around in non peak traffic

Outcome of noise complaint

Council staff

Handling of noise complaint

Council's Graffiti clean up

Night patrol in the Central City

Wastewater System

Hamilton as a place to live

Water Pressure

Clarity of the Water

Hamilton Park Cemetery

Kerbside Recyclable Collection

Household Refuse Collection

Continuity of Water Supply



Decreases Increases




Customer Choice – Facilities and Services Needing Improvement There are a small number of facilities and services that are rated as needing improvement in the Customer Choice environment. Hamilton’s Central Business District at night is rated the lowest with a CSI score of 63.3 (down 1.7 points from June 2012). This is rated as needing significant improvement.

Garden Place is rated the second lowest with a CSI score of 68.3 (up 2.9 points from June 2012). The Children’s Playground equipment, The Meteor, the Council operated uncovered off street car parking on the fringe of the CBD (For reference, car parks are Kent St, River Rd, Founders Theatre, Meteor Theatre), the underground car park by Garden Place off Alexandra Street, the Neighbourhood Parks, and the Clarence Street Theatre are all rated as needing improvement.

72.2

71.5

66.2

66.6

74.9

68.8

71.1

66.9

72.5

69.6

69.6

69.7

67.6

68.3

63.8

67.2

70.6

70.2

69.4

70.4

69.6

67.1

65.4

65.0

72.4

72.4

70.5

69.8

69.8

68.7

68.3

63.3

-0.6

-1.7

1.8

2.2

1.1

0.2

1.6

2.9

0 20 40 60 80 100

Clarence Street Theatre

Neighbourhood Park

Alexandra Street underground car park

Off-street car parking

The Meteor

Playground equipment

Garden Place

Hamilton's CBD at night



Decreases IncreasesNeeds significant

improvement(CSI Score 66 or lower)

Fair: Needs improvement(CSI Score 67-72)



No Customer Choice – Facilities and Services Needing Improvement The ease of getting around the city in peak traffic times is again rated the lowest (CSI score 55.4 – down 1.0 points from June 2012), which again infers that this is a major issue for many respondents. This is rated as needing significant improvement. It is interesting that the ease of getting around the city in weekends and non-peak traffic times is rated with a CSI score of 79.7.

The opportunities Council provides for community involvement in decision making is rated second lowest with a CSI score of 61.6 and the overall performance of the Elected Members of Council is rated third lowest with a CSI score 62.0. The Central City car parking in general (CSI score 63.5), and the cycling facilities in the city i.e. cycle lanes (CSI score 66.0) are also rated as fair but needing improvement.

62.6

58.8

71.5

62.8

55.7

68.5

63.9

67.9

59.9

57.7

64.9

62.4

61.4

61.1

56.4

66.0

63.5

62.0

61.6

55.4

-1.0

1.2

1.1

0.5

0.6

0 20 40 60 80 100

Cycling facilities


Elected Members

Involvement in Council decision making

Getting around in peak traffic



Decreases IncreasesNeeds significantimprovement

(CSI Score 61 or lower)

Fair: Needs improvement(CSI Score 62-67)



2.4 Comparisons to Last year

Main Increases from the July 2011 – June 2012 year There were 51 increases in CSI scores, 18 decreases and two unchanged factors for the April 2012 – March 2013 results compared to the July 2011 – June 2012 period. The largest increase was an 11.8 point increase in satisfaction for the way Council staff handled the noise complaint, (CSI score 82.1). This was followed by a 10.6 point increase for the outcome of the noise complaint, (CSI score 80.4), then a 4.7 point increase for Porritt Stadium (CSI score 73.7) and a 4.1 point increase for Gallagher Aquatic Centre (CSI score 77.3).

69.6

85.6

74.9

63.8

81.9

79.4

78.4

77.0

70.4

82.8

76.5

66.8

73.9

81.4

70.2

83.6

74.2

65.4

83.1

76.9

79.9

75.9

73.1

79.2

73.3

69.1

69.8

70.4

72.4

85.9

76.9

68.3

86.1

80.0

83.0

79.5

76.9

83.1

77.3

73.7

80.4

82.1

2.2

2.3

2.7

2.9

2.9

3.1

3.1

3.6

3.8

3.9

4.1

4.7

10.6

11.8

0 20 40 60 80 100

Neighbourhood Park

Hamilton Zoo

Street lighting in your area

Garden Place


ArtsPost


Multi-level car park in Knox Street

Leisure Centre (YMCA)

Hamilton Organic Centre

Gallagher Aquatic Centre

Porritt Stadium



Apr 2012 - Mar 2013 Jul 2011 - Jun 2012 Jul 2010 - Jun 2011 Difference to June 2012


Decreases Increases



Main Decreases from the July 2011 – June 2012 year The largest decrease in the CSI scores was 5.0 points for the Public Toilets (CSI score of 67.8). This was followed by a 2.6 point decrease for City Beautification (includes planting of traffic islands, street trees and the tree-scape of the city in general) (CSI score of 74.3). The Visitor Information Centre in Garden Place was down 2.3 points to a CSI score of 84.3 while the Household Refuse Collection was down 2.0 points (CSI score 86.3).

75.5

78.0

84.7

76.2

69.7

77.1

85.5

81.5

80.8

57.7

67.2

86.5

83.7

74.1

70.3

80.9

74.9

83.1

77.2

70.4

83.1

86.2

81.8

80.7

56.4

65.0

88.3

86.7

76.9

72.8

80.5

74.5

82.7

76.8

69.8

82.3

85.4

81.0

79.7

55.4

63.3

86.3

84.3

74.3

67.8

-0.4

-0.4

-0.4

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-0.8

-0.8

-0.9

-1.0

-1.7

-2.0

-2.3

-2.6

-5.0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Hamilton Transport Centre

Hamilton City Council Website

Wastewater System

Waterworld


The Hamilton City bus service


Council staff






City Beautification

Public Toilets

Apr 2012 - Mar 2013 Jul 2011 - Jun 2012 Jul 2010 - Jun 2011 Difference to June 2012


Decreases Increases



2.5 Comparisons of March 2013 versus December 2012 quarters

Main Increases from the December 2012 quarter

CAUTION – there are small numbers of respondents rating each individual service each quarter and therefore caution is recommended in interpreting these results

In total, there were 35 increases in CSI scores and 44 decreases for the March 2013 quarter versus the December 2012 quarter. The largest increase was a 15.5 point increase in satisfaction with The way Council staff handled the noise complaint to a CSI score of 89.4. (Note only 13 respondents made a noise complaint this quarter). This was followed by the Clarence Street Theatre, up 14.3 points, The outcome of the noise complaint, up 10.8 points, and the Multi-level car park in Knox Street, up 10.0 points.

83.7

85.1

79.4

78.2

82.6

79.3

72.0

82.5

77.9

59.8

76.9

67.8

73.4

63.4

79.6

85.7

80.7

85.1

75.9

81.6

72.7

82.5

83.5

81.3

58.1

91.0

79.6

83.4

69.4

84.6

80.4

78.5

79.6

83.2

80.1

81.5

73.0

81.1

87.3

74.0

69.1

92.9

76.3

73.9

67.6

73.9

83.9

82.0

83.3

86.9

84.4

85.9

77.7

85.8

92.1

79.2

75.6

100.0

86.2

84.7

82.0

89.4

3.5

3.5

3.7

3.7

4.3

4.5

4.7

4.7

4.8

5.3

6.5

7.1

10.0

10.8

14.3

15.5

0 20 40 60 80 100

Hamilton Lake


Waikato Stadium


City Walkways

Refuse Transfer Station

Porritt Stadium




Cycling facilities






Mar 13 Qtr (n = 175) Dec 12 Qtr (n = 175) Sep 12 Qtr (n = 176) Jun 12 Qtr (n = 175)

CSI Difference Mar Qtr 2013 - Dec Qtr 2012

Decreases Increases



Main Decreases from the December 2012 quarter The largest decrease in the CSI scores was for The Opening hours Hillcrest Library down 13.7 points to a CSI score of 75.9. (Note only 10 respondents had used Hillcrest Library this quarter). This was followed by the opening hours Chartwell Library down 12.4 points and Hamilton's CBD at night down 12.1 points. Waterworld was down 10 points followed by a 9.3 point decrease for the Chartwell Library overall and a 9.1 point decrease for the opening hours St Andrews Library

74.9

81.4

64.0

78.4

73.5

86.6

80.4

76.2

67.0

77.4

62.4

77.2

79.2

64.6

79.1

68.5

83.5

72.7

81.2

59.9

74.3

91.0

84.9

76.2

62.2

80.7

81.6

80.5

83.7

65.8

79.4

89.3

89.7

83.4

79.2

75.8

75.2

81.9

83.3

81.5

70.5

85.9

89.6

74.9

78.0

59.7

72.6

82.4

82.3

76.0

70.4

66.9

66.2

72.8

74.0

71.5

58.4

73.5

75.9

-5.7

-5.7

-6.1

-6.8

-6.9

-7.4

-7.4

-8.7

-8.9

-9.1

-9.1

-9.3

-10.0

-12.1

-12.4

-13.7

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pedestrian Facilities



Taste and odour of the water

Dog Control Service

Hamilton Zoo

Waikato Museum

Opening hours Dinsdale Library

The Meteor


Opening hours St Andrews Library

Chartwell Library overall

Waterworld


Opening hours Chartwell Library

Opening hours Hillcrest Library

Mar 13 Qtr (n = 175) Dec 12 Qtr (n = 175) Sep 12 Qtr (n = 176) Jun 12 Qtr (n = 175)

CSI Difference Mar Qtr 2013 - Dec Qtr 2012

Decreases Increases



2.6 Percentage of respondents satisfied A simple measure of satisfaction is to measure the proportion who are satisfied (Scores 7 – 10) based on the 11 point satisfaction scale (0 = very dissatisfied to 10 = very satisfied). The following two charts rank the facilities and services from those which have the highest proportion satisfied to those with the lowest percentage satisfied.

Note. There are two bases for measuring percentage. The first is the percentage of the sample who were asked that question (e.g. only users for specific facilities or services (like the library or zoo) or the whole sample for non-user related services (e.g. water) or general questions. The other option is to base percentages only on those who gave a rating (e.g. those who answered „don‟t know‟ and those who did not answer are excluded from the calculation). The latter is the more appropriate measure but both are charted below. The difference in these two bases is most apparent with the Council night patrol team to make the Central City safer in the evenings and weekends where close to half the sample did not give a rating. This means that only 46.0% of those asked this question were satisfied, but this equates to 87.4% being satisfied among those who gave a rating.

The vast majority of respondents who offered a rating are satisfied (scores 7 – 10). The St Andrews Library is rated the highest with 97.4% of respondents who rated being satisfied. This was followed by Hamilton Gardens (96.3%), Glenview Library (95.8%), Household Refuse Collection (94.4%), the continuity of the water supply (94.3%), and the Hamilton Park Cemetery (94.2%).

86.3

85.8

85.1

87.0

45.8

72.7

86.9

75.2

86.6

88.2

80.3

90.7

86.9

84.6

91.4

88.2

91.3

93.5

92.3

91.4

93.2

93.2

95.8

96.3

97.4

87.2

87.2

87.3

87.4

87.4

87.6

87.7

87.9

88.2

89.6

89.6

90.8

90.9

91.1

91.4

91.6

91.8

93.5

93.8

94.2

94.3

94.4

95.8

96.3

97.4

0 20 40 60 80 100

Parks and Gardens in the City


City Walkways

Hamilton Lake

Night patrol in the Central City

Wastewater System

Waikato Museum


Clarity of the Water

Council staff


Hamilton as a place to live






Hamilton Zoo





Glenview Library overall

Hamilton Gardens


Percentage Satisfied (scores 7 - 10)

% of those who rated satisfied (scores 7 - 10) % of the sample satisfied (scores 7 - 10)



The majority of respondents (between 77% and 87% of respondents among those who gave a rating) are satisfied (scores 7 – 10) with the facilities and services listed below.

75.2

74.2

76.8

75.6

75.0

77.9

78.0

79.5

78.7

77.9

77.1

79.6

80.2

78.9

81.7

82.5

79.2

82.4

81.2

84.0

81.7

84.9

85.8

85.5

86.1

82.5

85.1

76.5

77.3

77.4

77.8

78.0

79.1

79.1

79.5

79.8

80.2

80.2

80.3

81.2

81.7

82.5

82.7

82.8

82.9

82.9

84.0

84.3

85.2

85.8

86.2

86.4

86.6

86.7

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pedestrian Safety

Taste and odour of the water

Traffic Management

Street lighting in your area


Footpaths in your area



Dog Control Service

Locations of crossings

City News

Streets in general

Footpaths in general

Sports Areas

Pedestrian Facilities

Streets where you live

Street lighting in general

ArtsPost

Waterworld

Dinsdale Library overall

Seddon Park

Claudelands Events Centre

Chartwell Library overall

Water Pressure

Waikato Stadium







At the other end of the range, for some facilities and services there is a minority of respondents who are satisfied (scores 7 – 10) among those who gave a rating. The ease of getting around the city in peak traffic times has the lowest proportion of respondents who rated as being satisfied (36%). Only half of those who rated the Elected Members (49.3%) were satisfied and 49.5% were satisfied with the opportunities Council provides for community involvement in decision making.

34.3

43.7

41.6

48.7

49.4

55.4

56.2

62.7

59.5

64.1

66.5

66.9

62.7

68.9

71.6

65.2

68.5

66.1

72.0

66.4

72.7

73.0

70.5

73.9

35.9

49.3

49.5

50.6

51.7

56.9

61.8

62.7

63.2

64.3

67.5

67.7

68.9

70.6

71.6

72.0

72.3

72.6

73.0

73.3

73.7

73.8

74.9

75.9

0 20 40 60 80 100


Elected Members

Involvement in Council decision …



Garden Place in Central Hamilton

Provision of information


Cycling facilities

Public Toilets


The Meteor

The outcome of submissions etc

Process for Council decision …

Hamilton City Leisure Centre …

Porritt Stadium

Overall performance of Council

Stormwater System

Neighbourhood Park


Founders Theatre

City Beautification

Alexandra Street underground …






Main Increases in percentage satisfied from the July 2011 – June 2012 year There were 42 increases in the percentage satisfied (Scores 7 – 10) and 29 decreases for the April 2012 – March 2013 results compared to the July 2011 – June 2012 period. The largest increase was a 13.0% increase for Council’s Dog Control Service (79.8% satisfied). This was followed by a 12.4% increase for the handling of the noise complaint (79.5% satisfied), a 9.8% increase for Gallagher Aquatic Centre (79.1% satisfied), an 8.9% increase for the outcome of the noise complaint (8.9% satisfied), and an 8.3% increase for The Meteor (67.7% satisfied),

81.4

90.6

62.5

94.3

64.0

77.2

53.8

82.1

65.5

60.2

58.3

62.5

75.9

83.0

82.8

89.8

83.4

89.7

58.6

86.4

69.8

74.9

51.1

83.5

66.7

60.3

63.9

59.4

67.0

69.3

67.1

66.7

87.9

94.2

63.2

91.6

74.9

80.3

56.9

89.6

73.0

67.5

72.0

67.7

75.9

79.1

79.5

79.8

4.5

4.6

4.6

5.1

5.2

5.4

5.8

6.1

6.4

7.2

8.1

8.3

8.9

9.8

12.4

13.0

0 20 40 60 80 100



Cycling facilities



Streets in general

Garden Place


Neighbourhood Park


Porritt Stadium

The Meteor




Dog Control Service


Apr 2012 - Mar 2013 Jul 2011 - Jun 2012 Jul 2010 - Jun 2011 Increases Decreases

Percentage SatisfiedApr 12/Mar 13 - Jul 11/Jun 12

Increases



Main Decreases in percentage satisfied from the July 2011 – June 2012 year The largest decrease in the percentage satisfied (Scores 7 – 10) was 8.4% for the Public Toilets (64.3% satisfied). This was followed by a 6.5% decrease for Hamilton's Central Business District (down town) at night time (50.6% satisfied), a 5.6% decrease for City Beautification, (73.8% satisfied), a 5.1% decrease for Clarence Street Theatre (62.7% satisfied) and a 4.8% decrease for the City Walkways (including walkways along river and around Hamilton Lake) (87.3% satisfied).

72.7

86.4

88.4

88.5

91.7

90.2

77.8

93.3

79.4

59.1

95.3

85.3

74.7

74.1

58.6

68.7

75.6

86.6

88.6

94.3

90.4

89.5

89.6

97.4

76.0

75.5

98.3

92.1

67.8

79.4

57.1

72.6

73.7

84.3

86.2

91.8

87.6

86.7

86.6

94.4

72.6

71.6

94.3

87.3

62.7

73.8

50.6

64.3

-1.9

-2.3

-2.4

-2.5

-2.8

-2.8

-3.0

-3.0

-3.4

-3.9

-3.9

-4.8

-5.1

-5.6

-6.5

-8.4

0 20 40 60 80 100

Founders Theatre

Seddon Park

Water Pressure


Wastewater System




Stormwater System



City Walkways


City Beautification


Public Toilets


Apr 2012 - Mar 2013 Jul 2011 - Jun 2012 Jul 2010 - Jun 2011 Decreases

Percentage SatisfiedApr 12/Mar 13 - Jul 11/Jun 12

Decreases

March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013)Usage of Facilities and Services


2.7 Usage of Facilities and Services The following results are based on the interviews conducted for the latest four quarters for the April 2012 – March 2013 period.

Respondents were asked how often they had used Council provided services or facilities in the past 12 months2.

Some services like the kerbside recyclable collection, pedestrian facilities, Parks and Gardens, Hamilton Lake, and Hamilton Gardens were used by the vast majority of respondents. Many services were used by over 50% of the sample.

2 Note that certain Council provided services and facilities were not included in the „usage‟ part of the questionnaire as asking usage was not

appropriate e.g. for wastewater and sewerage; stormwater systems; water supply continuity, pressure, clarity and taste; pedestrian areas; household refuse collection; streets; street lighting and footpaths.

-4

-9

-14

-18

-18

-23

-23

-25

-31

-33

-31

-37

-39

-41

-41

-43

-49

-49

-49

-50

-51

-53

-54

1

31

6

3

0

8

6

3

11

0

1

1

1

0

0

1

1

5

1

0

86

29

29

16

6

17

22

15

21

2

20

10

14

0

9

12

2

16

4

7

22

23

26

23

24

31

22

20

13

21

24

25

2

13

2

21

11

9

15

9

1

5

3

9

28

38

53

28

18

35

16

51

24

28

22

55

36

52

18

32

38

13

35

46

40

0

95.9

91.0

85.9

82.3

82.1

77.4

76.9

74.9

68.2

66.3

65.0

62.5

61.2

57.7

57.2

56.3

50.7

50.0

49.3

48.9

48.1

47.1

45.6

-100.0 -75.0 -50.0 -25.0 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0

Kerbside Recycling

Pedestrian facilities

Parks and Gardens

Hamilton Lake

Hamilton Gardens

City Walkways

Central City car parking

Garden Place

Neighbourhood Parks


City News


Any Library


Public Toilets

Any Theatre

Community Library

Garden Place (Central) Library



Waterworld

Hamilton Zoo

Waikato Museum

% of the sample

Not in the past 12 months Daily Weekly Monthly Yearly Don't know Used

Usage of Facilities and Services March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013)


Some facilities like Hamilton City Leisure Centre (YMCA), Glenview Library, St Andrews Library, making a noise complaint, The Meteor and Councils Dog Control Service were used by a small proportion of the population and also used on an infrequent basis e.g. yearly.

-56

-57

-57

-59

-60

-61

-61

-65

-67

-72

-72

-74

-74

-74

-74

-81

-82

-82

-82

-82

-83

-86

-88

-88

-88

-89

0

10

6

7

12

0

4

0

3

1

6

5

3

2

3

0

1

3

2

3

1

9

6

12

8

9

3

7

5

4

9

1

11

7

4

2

1

4

4

1

1

0

1

3

5

1

42

20

36

19

21

16

34

23

28

22

13

23

9

9

18

15

14

11

10

15

14

12

9

5

3

5

2

43.3

42.7

42.0

40.6

38.5

37.6

37.2

33.8

32.9

26.6

26.1

25.5

25.4

25.4

25.0

17.7

17.5

16.7

16.4

16.3

15.0

13.2

10.7

10.0

9.9

9.4

-100.0 -75.0 -50.0 -25.0 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0

Founders Theatre

City bus service

Waikato Stadium

Council off-street car parking


Sports Areas




ArtsPost

Dinsdale Library


Chartwell Library

Cycling facilities



Porritt Stadium


Hillcrest Library

Seddon Park

Dog Control Service

The Meteor

Made a noise complaint

St Andrews Library

Glenview Library


% of the sample

Not in the past 12 months Daily Weekly Monthly Yearly Don't know Used



Usage of various Facilities and Services The following two pages compare the percentage of respondents using each facility or service in the 12 months from April 2012 – March 2013 against the percentage who used these in the previous three years. Most results are similar to the previous years.

50.3

50.6

46.2

53.3

54.1

43.7

33.6

52.9

59.3

60.7

65.0

50.5

74.1

65.2

70.3

64.7

69.0

77.2

75.9

77.8

83.4

85.1

85.8

92.5

89.7

52.6

48.5

50.8

51.5

53.5

44.7

48.0

43.1

50.4

60.5

61.3

50.1

65.4

67.8

74.9

60.4

68.4

75.5

78.6

80.4

85.3

86.9

87.3

93.4

92.2

44.4

42.4

45.4

48.9

48.1

47.4

40.3

45.0

55.5

55.2

58.2

48.7

70.4

60.4

62.2

65.4

68.5

77.2

79.0

75.5

83.2

84.2

87.2

91.9

91.9

42.7

43.3

45.6

47.1

48.1

48.9

49.3

50.0

50.7

56.3

57.2

57.7

61.2

62.5

65.0

66.3

68.2

74.9

76.9

77.4

82.1

82.3

85.9

91.0

95.9

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

City bus service

Founders Theatre

Waikato Museum

Hamilton Zoo

Waterworld




Community Library

Any Theatre

Public Toilets


Any Library


City News


Neighbourhood Parks

Garden Place


City Walkways

Hamilton Gardens

Hamilton Lake

Parks and Gardens

Pedestrian facilities

Kerbside Recycling

Used in the past 12 months

Apr 12 - Mar 13

Jul 11 - Jun 12

Jul 10 - Jun 11

Jul 09 - Jun 10



Usage of various Facilities and Services - continued There are many facilities and services provided by Hamilton City Council which were consistently used by only small segments of the survey respondents.

12.9

16.8

12.3

13.0

18.6

18.8

17.1

22.0

38.6

26.1

30.5

21.7

32.5

40.3

16.4

14.9

14.0

14.8

21.6

19.6

20.5

19.4

34.2

31.5

29.8

26.9

29.5

32.8

12.6

10.4

13.6

12.8

16.7

20.7

19.0

17.2

37.0

22.9

26.3

25.1

32.2

35.1

9.4

9.9

10.0

10.7

13.2

15.0

16.3

16.4

16.7

17.5

17.7

25.0

25.4

25.4

25.5

26.1

26.6

32.9

33.8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45


Glenview Library

St Andrews Library

Made a noise complaint

The Meteor

Dog Control Service

Seddon Park

Hillcrest Library


Porritt Stadium



Cycling facilities

Chartwell Library


Dinsdale Library

ArtsPost




Apr 12 - Mar 13

Jul 11 - Jun 12

Jul 10 - Jun 11

Jul 09 - Jun 10



Main Increases in Usage over June 2012 The following chart compares the main increases in usage for the period April 2012 – March 2013 against the rolling 12 month period of July 2011 – June 2012. For the period April 2012 – March 2013, there were slightly fewer increases (20) versus decreases (23) in usage of facilities although most changes are small. Generally, the level of usage is similar to those recorded in previous years.

The largest increase in usage was a 9.0% increase for the Claudelands Events Centre and the Hamilton City Council Website followed by 5.0% for the Garden Place (Central) Library and a 4.0% increase for the Kerbside Recyclable Collection of paper, plastic, glass and cans.

31.5

74.9

79.6

42.3

92.2

43.1

48.0

50.1

22.9

62.2

78.6

33.9

91.9

45.0

40.3

48.7

25.4

65.0

81.6

37.2

95.9

50.0

49.3

57.7

2.5

2.8

3.0

3.3

4.0

5.0

9.0

9.0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Cycling facilities

City News

Council Staff


Kerbside Recycling





Apr 12 - Mar 13 Jul 11 - Jun 12 Jul 10 - Jun 11

Increases



Main Usage Decreases from June 2012 The following chart compares the main decreases in usage for the period April 2012 – March 2013 against the rolling 12 month period of July 2011 – June 2012. Usage of the underground car park by Garden Place off Alexandra Street was down 12.0% to 25.0% while using any Library, was down 9.2% to 61.2%. Usage of any Community Library was down 4.8% to 50.7%, usage of the bus passenger facilities at the Hamilton transport Centre was down 4.8% to 38.5% and usage of Gallagher Aquatic Centre was down 4.0% to 16.7%.

86.9

78.6

75.5

46.5

16.4

19.6

43.7

50.4

65.4

34.2

84.2

79.0

77.2

43.4

12.6

20.7

43.3

55.5

70.4

37.0

82.3

76.9

74.9

40.6

9.4

16.7

38.5

50.7

61.2

25.0

-1.9

-2.1

-2.3

-2.8

-3.2

-4.0

-4.8

-4.8

-9.2

-12.0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Hamilton Lake


Garden Place

Council off-street car parking




Community Library

Any Library



Apr 12 - Mar 13 Jul 11 - Jun 12 Jul 10 - Jun 11

Decreases

March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013) Most Important Issues


3.0 Most Important Issues Respondents were asked ‘What, in your opinion, are the three main issues that Council should be looking at?’

The table below outlines the most important issues for the years July 2008 – June 2009, July 2009 – June 2010, July 2010 – June 2011, July 2011 – June 2012 as well as the current Moving Annual Total result (April 2012 – March 2013).

Over a third of the respondents (35.8%) mentioned a transportation related issue3 as one of their three most important

issues (i.e. anyone who mentioned either roads, traffic, public transport, parking, or road safety). A seventh of the respondents (17.4%) mentioned a Safety / Law and Order related issue as one of their three most important issues (i.e. anyone who mentioned Law and order, crime, safety, or graffiti).

Concerns with Roads (18.0%) then Rates (15.1%) were rated as the main individual issues while Expenditure (14.6%) was the third most commonly mentioned issue and the City Centre (13.1%) was fourth. They were followed by Law and Order (12.8%), Debt (12.3%), Safety (10.1%), Parking (9.1%), and Council concerns (9.0%).

Jul 08 - Jun 09 Jul 09 - Jun 10 Jul 10 - Jun 11 Jul 11 - Jun 12 Apr 12 - Mar 13

Roads (including road maintenance, development of roads and bypasses) (19.8%)

Traffic, including congestion (16.2%)

Law and Order (14.7%)

Public Transport (11.7%)

Safety (11.1%)

Parking (9.1%)

Rates (9.0%)

Recreational facilities (8.7%)




Parking (10.8%)

Safety (9.6%)

Rates (8.2%)


City Centre (7.0%)

City Development / Planning (6.5%)



Parking (13.4%)

City Centre (12.6%)

Rates (12.3%)

Safety (10.3%)




Expenditure (18.8%)

Rates (17.8%)


City Centre (11.0%)


Debt (9.8%)

Councillor concerns (9.8%)

Safety (9.5%)

Parking (7.5%)




Rates (15.1%)

Expenditure (14.6%)

City Centre (13.1%)


Debt (12.3%)

Safety (10.1%)

Parking (9.1%)

Council concerns (9.0%)

Councillor concerns (8.8%)

3 Note: In some cases respondents will mention more than one issue within a category (e.g. „traffic‟ and „parking‟ are both issues within the

transportation category). The percentages when added up for individual issues will total more than the overall percentage for a category.

Most Important Issues March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013)


What the main categories include Respondents were asked ‘What, in your opinion, are the three main issues that Council should be looking at?’ This question was asked as an open question with the answers grouped together for analysis purposes. Some of the issues cover a very specific subject while others cover an issue which can cover a number of specific themes. The following is a summary of what has been coded into each of the main issues for April 2012 – March 2013.

Expenditure: Expenditure includes anything to do with the amount of money the Council is spending or the types

of things Council is spending money on.

Rates: Rates includes anything to do with rates including the cost of rates, how rates money is spent and also

comments about rates from Waikato Regional Council.

Roads: Roading includes anything to do with road works, traffic lights, road markings and judderbars. It also includes

issues with pedestrian crossings, footpaths, roundabouts and traffic islands. Also included are issues with bridges or the need for more and issues with the quality or layout of roads as well as the need for more roads or alternative routing.

Debt: Debt includes anything to do with debt or the amount of money the Council is owing. This is often mentioned

as reducing the amount of debt.

Councillor concerns: Councillor concerns includes anything to do with the Elected Members including the

Councillors or the Mayor.

City Centre: This includes improving or rejuvenating the CBD, tidying the area up, improving Garden Place, and

the need for encouraging businesses and people back into the CBD.

Law and Order: This includes the Police (the need for more law enforcement), crime, and boy racers causing

safety issues. It also includes personal safety and safety of properties as well as other road safety concerns e.g. speeding. Also a concern under law and order is antisocial behaviour (again this is usually in the CBD and often alcohol related and involving youth or young adults).

Safety: Safety includes security, and where safety in general is mentioned as well as personal safety.

Parking: This usually refers to the lack of parking in the Central Business District (CBD) and other issues with

parking e.g. security or cost of parking.

Recreational facilities: Recreational facilities includes anything to do with areas or facilities for entertainment or

recreation e.g. swimming pools, netball courts, programmes for sport or flax weaving etc. This is often mentioned as activities for specific groups but usually it is mentioned in relation to youth or the young.

Traffic: Traffic generally includes traffic congestion or traffic control

Public Transport: This includes issues with public transport e.g. buses, timetables, bus shelters and the need for

more or better public transport. It also includes where the term „transport‟ has been used and it is uncertain whether it refers to public or private transport as an issue.

City Development/Planning: City Development / Planning includes anything to do with town planning, city

growth, housing developments, subdivisions, shopping areas, new schools or the infrastructure.



3.1 Most important issues comparison to previous years Respondents were asked „What, in your opinion, are the three main issues that Council should be looking at?‟ This question was asked as an open question with the answers grouped together for analysis purposes. There was a range of responses, with the main comments covering transportation issues (36%) which included roads (18%), parking (9%), traffic issues (7%), public transport (5%), and road safety (4%). The second main issue covers law and order / safety issues (17%) which included law and order (13%), safety (10%), and graffiti (2%). Other individual issues included rates (15%), expenditure (15%), concerns with the City Centre (12%), concerns with debt (12%), and Council concerns (9%).

3.6

6.6

2.9

1.6

2.7

3.3

2.1

2.9

10.3

3.4

4.0

12.6

10.3

12.3

7.1

10.3

13.7

23.7

3.1

9.4

9.7

13.4

17.7

40.1

3.8

5.0

1.5

5.7

4.8

4.8

4.0

6.0

6.6

9.8

3.4

9.8

11.0

18.8

17.8

3.1

9.5

10.7

16.2

2.9

5.0

6.5

7.5

13.2

28.9

3.6

3.9

4.0

4.3

4.6

4.7

4.9

5.8

8.0

8.8

9.0

12.3

13.1

14.6

15.1

2.3

10.1

12.8

17.4

3.6

5.3

7.1

9.1

18.0

35.8

0 10 20 30 40 50

Youth

Events / entertainment

Footpaths

Consultation with community

Core services

Parks & gardens

Community

Recreational facilities / services

City Development / Planning

Councillor concerns

Council concerns

Debt

City Centre

Expenditure

Rates

Graffiti

Safety

Law and Order

Law and Order / Safety

Road safety

Public Transport

Traffic

Parking

Roading

Any Transportation Issue

MAT Apr 12 - Mar 13

MAT Jul 11 - Jun 12

MAT Jul 10 - Jun 11

Most Important Issues March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013)


There are also a number of issues which were mentioned by smaller groups of respondents.

1.9

11.0

10.4

0.6

1.6

0.6

0.7

0.6

2.0

1.4

0.7

1.3

1.7

1.3

3.1

1.9

1.0

0.4

1.7

3.4

1.9

6.0

2.0

3.1

2.7

4.0

2.7

2.1

2.7

4.0

2.7

2.1

1.9

13.2

9.0

1.2

1.3

0.9

1.2

1.0

1.5

1.2

2.2

0.1

1.0

1.2

2.1

1.6

1.9

1.6

3.1

2.2

2.3

2.5

1.2

2.1

2.5

1.8

2.1

1.2

2.5

1.8

2.1

1.2

2.3

12.3

5.7

0.6

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.3

1.3

1.4

1.4

1.6

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.9

1.9

2.1

2.1

2.4

2.4

2.6

2.7

2.9

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.4

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.4

0 10 20 30 40 50

Positive comments

No answer

Others

Stadium

Toilets

Wastewater/sewerage

Education

Disabled access / facilities

Play grounds

Animal control

Senior Citizens

Stormwater

Recycling

Arts / culture

Employment / development

Walkways

Rubbish collection/cost

Libraries

Sports grounds / facilities

Street / Park lighting

Market the City / tourism

Development of river area

City Beautification

Cycling facilities

Environmental protection

Clean city

Communication

Water

Environmental protection

Clean city

Communication

Water

MAT Apr 12 - Mar 13

MAT Jul 11 - Jun 12

MAT Jul 10 - Jun 11



3.2 Most important issues this quarter Respondents were asked „What, in your opinion, are the three main issues that Council should be looking at?‟ This question was asked as an open question with the answers grouped together for analysis purposes.

The following chart compares the issues mentioned in the March 2013 quarter (n = 175) versus the proportion who mentioned these issues in the current Moving Annual Total result (April 2012 – March 2013 – n = 701).

The results are similar for the March 2013 quarter versus the MAT basis with the main issue being transportation issues (31%), then law and order / safety issues (19%), followed by concerns with the city centre (19%), concerns with expenditure (17%), City Development / Planning (14%), and rates (13%).

The largest difference this quarter was a 5.7% increase in mention of concerns with the city centre (19% versus 13% on a MAT basis) and a 5.7% decrease in mention of City Development / Planning (14% versus 8% on a MAT basis. The largest decrease was a 4.9% mention of any transportation issue (31% this quarter versus 36% on a MAT basis) and a 4.8% decrease in mention of debt (7% this quarter versus 12% on a MAT basis).

1.7

4.0

2.4

4.7

2.7

3.0

1.4

2.9

3.6

3.4

3.9

5.8

8.8

12.3

9.0

15.1

8.0

14.6

13.1

2.3

10.1

12.8

17.4

7.1

3.6

5.3

9.1

18.0

35.8

2.9

2.9

2.9

2.9

3.4

3.4

4.0

4.6

5.7

6.3

6.3

6.3

6.3

7.4

8.0

12.6

13.7

16.6

18.9

2.3

9.1

15.4

18.9

2.9

4.6

4.6

10.9

13.7

30.9

-1.1

-1.9

-2.6

-4.8

-1.0

-2.5

-1.0

-4.3

-0.7

-4.3

-4.9

1.1

0.4

0.7

0.4

2.6

1.7

2.1

2.9

2.4

0.4

5.7

2.0

5.7

2.6

1.5

1.0

1.7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Arts / culture

Footpaths

Street / Park lighting

Parks & gardens

City Beautification

Clean city

Animal control

Cycling facilities

Youth

Water

Events / entertainment

Recreational facilities / services

Councillor concerns

Debt

Council concerns

Rates

City Development / Planning

Expenditure

Rejuvenate City Centre

Graffiti

Safety

Law and Order

Law and Order / Safety

Traffic

Road safety

Public Transport

Parking

Roading

Any Transportation Issue

% of the sample

Mar 2013 Quarter

MAT Apr 12 - Mar 13

Quarter higher

Quarter lower

Overall Performance of Council March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013)


4.0 Specific Questions This section includes a quarterly overview of key individual measures included in the Quarterly Residents Survey. A detailed analysis of each individual Council service and facility measured in the Quarterly Residents Survey is included in the annual review which is reported after the June quarter of each year.

Electoral Ward analysis Historical analysis of the Annual Residents Survey highlighted that there are significant differences in the demographic population profile of the population living in the various parts of Hamilton City. There are also clear differences in the proximity to Council facilities and services dependant on where the respondent is located.

The Quarterly Residents Survey attempts to measure the difference in usage and satisfaction across the various parts of Hamilton. With surveys undertaken to reflect the population of a geographic area, it is most important to correctly reflect the geographic spread of the population. The random sampling using quota controls by location, as used by DigiPoll for the Quarterly Residents Survey ensures that this is achieved (refer Methodology Section 6.0) The location of each respondent is identified back to a Census Area Unit (CAU) by asking the respondent which area they live in. The CAU is validated by asking respondents to identify the nearest intersection to where they live. CAU‟s are non-administrative areas defined by Statistics New Zealand. In the 2006 Census, there were 44 CAUs in Hamilton City.

Since only 150 - 175 interviews are completed each quarter it is not feasible to report the results back to a CAU level. However, to give some geographic insights, these are grouped into five areas based on the electoral ward boundaries last used in the 1995 Hamilton City Council election. Although the city currently uses a 2 ward system, the former 5 wards have been used in the Annual Residents Survey since 1995 to enable a more detailed geographic analysis of the data. These wards are also used for Council‟s neighbourhood and youth worker networks.

1. Dinsdale/Nawton area – Brymer, Burbush, Crawshaw, Dinsdale North, Dinsdale South, Frankton Junction, Grandview,

Nawton, Rotokauri, Swarbrick, Templeview Census Area Units (CAU‟s)

2. Beerescourt/Pukete area – Beerescourt, Bryant, Hamilton Central, Maeroa, Pukete, Pukete West, Te Rapa CAU‟s

3. Chartwell/Fairfield area – Chartwell, Chedworth, Clarkin, Enderley, Fairview Downs, Flagstaff, Horsham Downs,

Huntington, Insoll, Porritt, Rototuna, Queenwood, Sylvester CAU‟s

4. Hamilton East/Hillcrest area – Claudelands, Silverdale (Dalesford), Hamilton East, Hillcrest West, Naylor, Peachgrove, Riverlea, University CAU‟s

5. Melville/Lake area – Bader, Glenview, Hamilton Lake, Melville, Peacocke CAU‟s

March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013) Overall Performance of Council


4.1 Overall Performance of Council

Respondents were asked „Thinking not only about the Elected Members and Council Staff but also the services and facilities the Council provides and using the same scale where 0 is very dissatisfied to 10 being very satisfied, how satisfied are you with the Overall Performance of Council in the past 12 months?‟

Two thirds of the respondents (69%) rated their satisfaction with the Overall Performance of Council with scores that reflect satisfaction (scores of 7 – 10). The mode was a score of 8 (28%) and 18% rated the Overall Performance of Council with a score of 9 or 10 (exceeded expectations). A fifth of the sample (23%) were neutral (scores 4 – 6) and 3.2% were actually dissatisfied (scores 0 – 3). The CSI score was 72.2, up 0.7 points from the July 2011 – June 2012 period.

0.8 0.4 0.71.3

2.5

7.7

12.9

22.5

28.4

7.9

9.7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% o

f th

e re

spo

nd

ents

Satisfaction Score (0 = very dissatisfied to 10 = very satisfied)

Apr 12 - Mar 13

Jul 11 - Jun 12

Jul 10 - Jun 11

Overall satisfactionCSI Scores

Apr 12 - Mar 13 = 72.2Jul 11 - Jun 12 = 71.5Jul 10 - Jun 11 = 74.2Jul 09 - Jun 10 = 76.4

10 = Very Satisfied

0 = Very Dissatisfied



Overall Satisfaction Trends on an Annual Basis The CSI score of 72.2 for the Overall Performance of Council in the past 12 months is 0.7 points higher than that recorded in July 2011 – June 2012 but this is the second lowest recorded since 2004. It still appears that there is a cyclical pattern in overall satisfaction although the CSI Scores have been far more consistent since 2005.

Overall Satisfaction Trends on a Quarterly Basis The following chart shows the quarterly trend in the CSI scores for the Overall performance of the Council. The latest quarter‟s CSI score of 73.8 is 0.9 points higher than last quarter. It appears that CSI scores have been steadily improving since December 2011.

58.061.0

67.0 68.066.0

63.0

53.0

55.0

53.0

57.059.6

58.3

68.5

76.5 76.278.1

75.8 74.976.4

74.2

71.5 72.2

40

50

60

70

80

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

Jul 0

6 -

Jun

07

Jul 0

7 -

Jun

08

Jul 0

8 -

Jun

09

Jul 0

9 -

Jun

10

Jul 1

0 -

Jun

11

Jul 1

1 -

Jun

12

Ap

r 1

2 -

Mar

13

CSI

Sco

res Annual CSI Scores and Trend

CSI score

77.479.3

78.277.6

72.7

77.475.6

77.4

74.775.8

74.874.475.7

77.376.276.4

75.075.174.3

72.4

73.8

69.9

72.2

70.6

71.672.973.8

60

70

80

90

100

Sep

t 0

6 Q

tr

Dec

06

Qtr

Mar

07

Qtr

Jun

07

Qtr

Sep

07

Qtr

Dec

07

Qtr

Mar

08

Qtr

Jun

08

Qtr

Sep

08

Qtr

Dec

08

Qtr

Mar

09

Qtr

Jun

09

Qtr

Sep

09

Qtr

Dec

09

Qtr

Mar

10

Qtr

Jun

10

Qtr

Sep

10

Qtr

Dec

10

Qtr

Mar

11

Qtr

Jun

11

Qtr

Sep

11

Qtr

Dec

11

Qtr

Mar

12

Qtr

Jun

12

Qtr

Sep

11

Qtr

Dec

12

Qtr

Mar

13

Qtr

CSI

Sco

res Quarterly CSI Scores and Trend

CSI score

Trend



Overall Satisfaction with the performance of Council by demographics There are a number of demographic variables which appear to have a significant impact on overall satisfaction with local authorities. The chart opposite compares these variables.

Most of the demographic subgroups of interest rate the Overall Performance of Council with CSI scores that rate as a good performance but with potential for improvement (CSI scores 68 to 72).

The variables that appear to have had the greatest impact on satisfaction with the Overall Performance of Council were:

Respondents from Dinsdale / Nawton (CSI score 68.5) are significantly less satisfied than those from the other areas (CSI scores 72.0 – 75.1).

Women (CSI score 73.4) are significantly more satisfied than men (CSI scores 70.9).

Those in the 46 – 64 age bracket (CSI score 69.0) are less satisfied than those in the other age brackets (CSI scores 72.5 – 79.4). This is the opposite pattern to what would be expected as generally the older the respondent, the higher the level of satisfaction.

Those who classified themselves as being of other ethnic backgrounds (CSI score 80.8) are more satisfied than those who only classified themselves as Kiwis or New Zealanders (CSI score 67.5).

Those who are renting (CSI score 79.7) are more satisfied than those who live in their own home (CSI score 68.4).

Those who describe their accommodation as a stand-alone house (CSI score 70.8) are less satisfied than those from flats or apartments (CSI score 82.2).

72.2

72.0

72.5

75.1

68.5

73.8

70.9

73.4

79.4

72.9

69.0

72.5

69.5

67.5

76.3

80.8

69.8

72.8

75.9

77.7

76.0

67.0

68.4

79.7

70.8

82.2

73.1

71.9

71.3

74.2

73.6

71.8

71.8

73.2

73.5

71.7

72.1

72.8

701

93

194

155

169

90

305

396

33

219

265

175

473

64

78

86

327

114

260

134

207

253

519

181

619

72

130

231

238

100

163

385

101

50

133

194

331

41

0 20 40 60 80 100

Apr 12 - Mar 13

Beerescourt/Pukete

Chartwell/Fairfield

Ham East/Hillcrest

Dinsdale/Nawton

Melville/Ham Lake

Men

Women

Under 25 years

26 - 45 years

46 - 64 years

65+ years

European descent

New Zealander

Maori descent

Other

Work full time

Part time

Not working

Less than $30,000

$30,000 to $70,000

More than $70,000

Own home

Renting

Stand alone house

Flat or apartment

People in house = 1

People in house = 2

People in house = 3 - 4

People in house = 5+

# aged 18+ - 1

# aged 18+ - 2

# aged 18+ - 3

# aged 18+ - 4+

Living alone

Living with partner

Living with family

Living with others

CSI Score

CSI score # of respondents



Overall Satisfaction with the performance of Council by other variables There are a number of other variables which appear to have a significant impact on overall satisfaction with local authorities. The chart opposite compares these variables.

Most of the other subgroups of interest rate the Overall Performance of Council with CSI scores that rate as a good performance but with potential for improvement (CSI scores 68 to 72).

The variables that appear to have had the greatest impact on satisfaction with the Overall Performance of Council were:

Those who don‟t pay rates (CSI score 79.3) are more satisfied than those who pay rates (CSI score 69.2).

Respondents who thought they received good value for their rates were significantly more satisfied than those who did not think they received good value for their rates (CSI score 75.1 and 46.7 respectively).

Those who were very satisfied with Hamilton as a place to live (score 9 or 10) rated their overall satisfaction with Council significantly higher (CSI score 78.1) than those who rate Hamilton as a place to live with scores in the 0 – 6 range (CSI score 54.2).

Respondents who thought the overall quality of Council facilities and services had greatly improved over the last year (score 9 or 10) were significantly more satisfied with Council overall (CSI score 89.6 versus 61.7 for those who rated this with scores of 0 – 6).

72.2

68.1

72.9

71.0

75.2

71.4

72.4

69.2

79.3

46.7

63.4

75.1

54.2

68.9

78.1

61.7

72.5

89.6

701

92

609

531

170

168

520

538

163

48

152

325

54

295

350

209

346

113

0 20 40 60 80 100

Apr 12 - Mar 13

Own business

Not Own business

Voted last election

Didn't vote

Contacted Elected Members

No contact

Pay rates

Don't pay rates

Rates value poor

Value rates neutral

Rates value good

Place to live (0 - 6)


Place to live (9-10)

Quality (0 - 6)

Quality (7 - 8)

Quality (9-10)

CSI Score




Overall Satisfaction with the performance of Council by Census Area Unit (CAU) The chart shows there was some variation by CAU in the average CSI scores for the Overall Performance of Council in the past year.

Most of the CAU‟s and Wards rate the Overall Performance of Council with CSI scores that rate as a good performance but with potential for improvement (CSI scores 68 to 72).

The variation in the CSI scores by CAU could be a result of the demographic variances by CAU but it could also reflect different Council initiatives in the different areas.

The CAU‟s which had the highest CSI scores for the Council overall included:

Bader (CSI score = 84.9)

University (CSI score = 81.9)

Hamilton East (CSI score = 80.2)

Swarbrick (CSI score = 79.5)

Chartwell (CSI score = 79.4)

Hamilton Lake (CSI score = 77.6)

Rototuna (CSI score = 77.1)

Melville (CSI score = 76.8)

Silverdale (CSI score = 76.7)

Rotokauri (CSI score = 76.7)

Excluding CAU‟s with less than 5 respondents, the CAU‟s which had the lowest CSI scores for the Council overall included:

Dinsdale South (CSI score = 59.0)

Fairview Downs (CSI score = 63.2)

Glenview (CSI score = 63.3)

Templeview (CSI score = 64.9)

Nawton (CSI score = 65.7)

Hamilton Central (CSI score = 66.7)

Dinsdale North (CSI score = 67.8)

Claudelands (CSI score = 68.1)

Queenwood (CSI score = 68.1)

Clarkin (CSI score = 68.5)

Dinsdale/Nawton (CSI score = 68.5)

72.0

72.5

73.1

66.7

73.9

71.3

72.0

71.3

72.5

79.4

69.9

68.5

72.4

63.2

75.5

72.2

73.1

69.2

74.9

77.1

68.1

75.1

68.1

76.7

80.2

72.0

75.6

74.9

69.8

81.9

68.5

70.8

67.8

59.0

72.9

65.7

79.5

69.0

70.0

64.9

73.8

84.9

63.3

77.6

76.8

93

18

25

9

15

12

7

7

194

21

21

8

18

14

24

9

22

8

7

16

20

155

23

14

22

30

17

15

15

19

169

12

33

12

10

50

16

8

18

7

90

14

31

16

27

0 20 40 60 80 100

Beerescourt/Pukete

Beerescourt

Bryant

Hamilton Central

Maeroa

Pukete

Pukete West

Te Rapa

Chartwell/Fairfield

Chartwell

Chedworth

Clarkin

Enderley

Fairview Downs

Flagstaff

Horsham Downs

Huntington

Insoll

Porritt

Rototuna

Queenwood

Ham East/Hillcrest

Claudelands

Silverdale

Hamilton East

Hillcrest

Naylor

Peachgrove

Riverlea

University

Dinsdale/Nawton

Brymer

Dinsdale North

Dinsdale South

Frankton Junction

Nawton

Swarbrick

Crawshaw

Grandview

Templeview

Melville/Lake

Bader

Glenview

Hamilton Lake

Melville

CSI Score




Overall Satisfaction versus Satisfaction with the Staff and Elected Members The overall satisfaction was asked using three questions covering satisfaction with the Elected Members, then Council Staff and lastly the Overall Performance of Council. This was asked as follows:

Elected Members question: „Council is made up of two main groups – the Elected Members (the Councillors and Mayor) and secondly the Management and staff of Council that provide the various services and manage the various facilities. Overall taking everything that has happened in the past year and using the same scale where 0 is very dissatisfied to 10 being very satisfied how satisfied are you with the Overall Performance of the Elected Members of Council in the past year (i.e. the Mayor and Councillors)?‟

Staff Question: Respondents were then asked „thinking about the staff at all Council facilities and using the same scale where 0 is very dissatisfied to 10 being very satisfied, how satisfied are you with the Overall Performance of Council Staff in the past 12 months?‟

Overall Council Question: Finally respondents were asked „thinking not only about the Elected Members and Council Staff but also the services and facilities the Council provides and using the same scale where 0 is very dissatisfied to 10 being very satisfied, how satisfied are you with the Overall Performance of Council in the past 12 months?‟

Respondents were most satisfied with the Council Staff with a CSI score of 81.0. Over a third of the respondents (38%) were very satisfied (scores of 9 and 10) while 38% rated their satisfaction with a score of 8.

By comparison, the CSI score was 62.0 for the Elected Members. An eighth of the respondents (13%) were very satisfied (scores of 9 and 10) while 14% rated their satisfaction with a score of 8. By contrast, the CSI score was 72.2 for the Overall Performance of Council.

0.8 0.4 0.71.3

2.5

7.7

12.9

22.5

28.4

7.9

9.7

0.5 0.5 0.41.4

3.6 3.9

13.2

37.6

18.8 18.7

2.21.5

2.9

5.3 5.3

12.7

15.0

16.8

14.3

6.5 6.1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% o

f th

e re

spo

nd

ents



Council staff

Elected Members


Overall Council = 72.2Council Staff = 81.0

Elected Members = 62.0

10 = Very Satisfied




Overall Satisfaction: Reasons for feeling this way The respondents were asked why they rated the Overall Performance of Council the way they did. This question was asked as an open question with the answers grouped together for analysis purposes. There was a range of responses, with some respondents offering positive reasons for giving a high score, while others offered reasons for giving a lower score. On a Moving Annual Total basis (April 2012 – March 2013), the main positive comments focused around the feeling that Council was doing a good job or working well for the city (10%) or on the staff (10%) or good service (10%). The main negative comment had to do with concerns specific services (13%), financial concerns (12%), and concerns with the Elected Members (9%).

1.5

5.1

9.5

6.0

0.6

2.9

3.8

3.1

3.5

13.1

12.5

13.1

2.8

4.7

7.9

0.9

1.3

1.3

1.9

8.1

6.2

7.3

8.7

10.9

1.6

4.7

9.4

5.4

1.6

1.6

2.1

3.1

4.7

8.8

12.1

12.6

3.6

4.6

8.6

1.1

1.4

1.4

3.3

5.1

7.8

9.8

10.1

10.4

0 5 10 15 20 25

Don't know / No reason

Don't know what they do

No answer

Other negative

Infighting/division within Council

Lack of information

V8's Negative

Not listen to community

Non performance

Elected Members - concerns

Financial concerns

Concern with specific services

Average performance

Room for improvement

Other positive

Public consultation / feedback

Hamilton good place to live

Beautification / clean roads

Elected Members - positive

Specific services

No problems

Good Service

Good staff

Working well for the city

% of respondents

MAT Apr 2012 - Mar 2013

MAT Jul 2011 - Jun 2012

MAT Jul 2010 - Jun 2011



Overall Satisfaction: Reasons for feeling this way for the December quarter The respondents were asked why they rated the Overall Performance of Council the way they did. This question was asked as an open question with the answers grouped together for analysis purposes. The following chart compares the responses mentioned in the March 2013 quarter (n = 175) versus the proportion who mentioned these in the current Moving Annual Total result (April 2012 – March 2013: n = 701).

The main positive comments for the March quarter focused around the feeling that Council was doing a good job or working well for the city (12%), the fact there were no problems (9%), good staff (7%), and good service (6%). More respondents mentioned working well for the city (2% higher) while fewer mentioned good service (4% lower).

The main negative comments for the quarter had to do with concerns with specific services (13% versus 13% on a MAT basis), financial concerns (10% versus 12% on a MAT basis), and concerns with the Elected Members (7% versus 9% on a MAT basis).

The largest difference between the March quarter and on a MAT basis was a 3.6% decrease in mention of good service. The largest increase was a 1.6% rise in mention of doing a good job or working well for the city.

1.6

4.7

9.4

5.4

1.0

2.1

1.6

4.7

3.1

8.8

12.1

12.6

3.6

4.6

8.6

3.3

1.4

1.4

5.1

9.8

10.1

7.8

10.4

1.7

5.1

12.0

4.0

1.1

1.7

1.7

2.9

2.9

6.9

9.7

13.1

1.7

5.1

12.6

0.6

1.1

1.7

4.6

6.3

7.4

8.6

12.0

-1.4

-0.4

-1.9

-0.3

-2.0

-2.4

-1.9

-2.7

-0.3

-0.6

-3.6

-2.7

0.1

0.4

2.6

0.1

0.1

0.6

0.6

4.0

0.3

0.7

1.6

0 5 10 15 20 25

Don't know / No reason

Don't know what they do

No answer

Other negative

Management concerns

V8s Negative

Lack of information

Non performance

Not listen to community

Elected Members - concerns

Financial concerns

Concern with specific services

Average performance

Room for improvement

Other positive

Elected Members - positive

Beautification / clean roads

Hamilton good place to live

Specific services

Good Service

Good staff

No problems

Working well for the city

% of the sample

Mar 2013 Quarter

MAT Apr 2012 - Mar 2013

March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013)Council Staff


4.2 Council Staff

Dealing with Council Staff Respondents were asked „How often have you had contact with Council Staff over the past 12 months? (By Council Staff we mean staff at all Council facilities including Libraries, Waterworld, Gallagher Aquatic Centre, the Waikato Museum of Art and History, Hamilton Zoo, Community Houses, Theatres, as well as staff in the main Council office in Garden Place)‟.

Four fifths of the respondents (82%) had some contact with Council Staff during the past year. This is up 3.0% from the July 2011 – June 2012 result.

Over a quarter of the respondents (29%) had contact with Council staff monthly while 20% had contact weekly and 2% had contact daily. Over a quarter of the respondents contacted yearly (30%).

A fifth of all respondents (18%) had no contact with Council Staff during the past 12 months.

The subgroups that were significantly more likely to have had contact with Council Staff over the last 12 months included those:

Who own or operate their own business (91% of the subgroup).

Who are in part time paid employment (90% of the subgroup).

With a household income over $70,000 (88% of the subgroup).

Aged 26 – 45 years (86% of the subgroup)

Who live in their own home (84% of the subgroup).

Who pay rates (84% of the subgroup).

Those significantly more likely NOT to have had contact with Council Staff over the last 12 months included those:

Who do not pay rates (23% of the subgroup).

Who rent or board (23% of the subgroup).

Men (21% of the subgroup).

Who don‟t own or operate their own business (19% of the subgroup).

-18

-21

-20

-22

-20

-26

-25

-29

-36

2

2

2

3

2

2

3

4

2

20

21

21

16

18

16

16

14

13

30

26

29

28

27

25

25

24

15

30

30

28

31

32

29

28

26

29

3

81.6

78.6

79.6

77.5

78.1

71.4

71.6

67.9

59.7

-50.0 -25.0 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0

Apr 2012 - Mar 2013

Jul 2011 - Jun 2012

Jul 2010 - Jun 2011

Jul 2009 - Jun 2010

Jul 2008 - Jun 2009

Jul 2007 - Jun 2008

Jul 2006 - Jun 2007

2006

2005

% of the sample

Not in the past 12 months Daily

Weekly Monthly

Yearly Don't know

Used

Council Staff March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013)


Satisfaction with Council Staff Respondents who had some interaction with Council Staff were asked „Thinking about the staff at all Council facilities and using the same scale where 0 is very dissatisfied to 10 being very satisfied, how satisfied are you with the Overall Performance of Council Staff in the past 12 months?‟

The majority of respondents who had dealings with Council Staff (n = 563) are satisfied with the Overall performance of Council Staff in the past 12 months (88% gave scores of 7 – 10). Over a third of the subgroup (38%) rated the Overall performance of Staff with a score of 9 or 10 (exceeded expectations). The mode was a score of 8 (38%).

Less than a tenth of the sample (9%) were neutral (scores 4 – 6) while eight respondents (1.4%) were dissatisfied. The CSI score was 81.0, a score that reflects an exceptional performance. This is 0.8 points lower than the June 2012 result.

0.5 0.5 0.41.4

3.6 3.9

13.2

37.6

18.8 18.7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% o

f th

e re

spo

nd

ents


Apr 12 - Mar 13

Jul 11 - Jun 12

Jul 10 - Jun 11

Council StaffCSI Scores

Apr 12- Mar 13 = 81.0Jul 11 - Jun 12 = 81.8Jul 10 - Jun 11 = 81.5Jul 09 - Jun 10 = 81.7

10 = Very Satisfied


March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013)Council Staff


Staff Satisfaction Trends on an Annual Basis The following chart shows the CSI scores have remained at a consistently high level for the past nine years. The current CSI score of 81.0 is 0.8 points lower than that recorded in July 2011 – June 2012. Note: the low score in 2004 was due to changing the question to read „Management and Staff‟; this was changed back to „Staff‟ only in 2005.

Staff Satisfaction Trends on a Quarterly Basis The following chart shows the quarterly trend in the CSI scores for the Overall performance of the Staff. The CSI scores have varied only 4.4 points over the last 21 measures (December 2007 to March 2013 quarter), from a low of 78.8 to a high of 83.2. The latest quarter‟s CSI score of 81.9 is in the middle of the range and on par with the gradually rising trend line.

79.681.1

72.9

78.7 79.5 79.9 79.6 79.881.7 81.5 81.8 81.0

60

70

80

90

100

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

Jul 0

6 -

Jun

07

Jul 0

7 -

Jun

08

Jul 0

8 -

Jun

09

Jul 0

9 -

Jun

10

Jul 1

0 -

Jun

11

Jul 1

1 -

Jun

12

Ap

r 1

2 -

Mar

1

3

CSI

Sco


CSI score

Trend

80.078.9

80.180.6

76.2

80.280.181.3

78.8

79.880.280.181.3

83.2

80.3

81.981.981.382.081.0

80.680.3

83.182.9

80.179.3

81.9

60

70

80

90

100

Sep

t 0

6 Q

tr

Dec

06

Qtr

Mar

07

Qtr

Jun

07

Qtr

Sep

07

Qtr

Dec

07

Qtr

Mar

08

Qtr

Jun

08

Qtr

Sep

08

Qtr

Dec

08

Qtr

Mar

09

Qtr

Jun

09

Qtr

Sep

09

Qtr

Dec

09

Qtr

Mar

10

Qtr

Jun

10

Qtr

Sep

10

Qtr

Dec

10

Qtr

Mar

11

Qtr

Jun

11

Qtr

Sep

11

Qtr

Dec

11

Qtr

Mar

12

Qtr

Jun

12

Qtr

Sep

12

Qtr

Dec

12

Qtr

Mar

13

Qtr

CSI

Sco

res Quarterly CSI Scores and Trend

CSI score

Trend

Elected Members March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013)


4.3. Elected Members

Respondents were asked „Council is made up of two main groups – the Elected Members (the Councillors and Mayor) and secondly the staff of Council that provide the various services and manage the various facilities. Overall taking everything into account that has happened in the past year and using the same scale where 0 is very dissatisfied to 10 being very satisfied, how satisfied are you with the Overall Performance of the Elected Members of Council in the past year (i.e. the Mayor and Councillors)?‟

Under half of the respondents (44%) were satisfied with the Overall Performance of the Elected Members of Council in the past year (i.e. the Mayor and Councillors) (scores of 7 – 10). The mode was a score of 7 (17%). An eighth of the subgroup (12.6%) rated the Overall Performance of the Elected Members with a score of 9 or 10 (exceeded expectations).

A third of the sample (33%) were neutral (scores 4 – 6) while an eighth of the respondents (12%) were dissatisfied. A ninth of the respondents (12%) did not answer this question, presumably because they did not know enough about the Elected Members. The CSI score was 62.0, up 0.6 points from the July 2011 - June 2012 result. The CSI score now reflects a fair performance but with the need for significant improvement.

2.21.5

2.9

5.3 5.3

12.7

15.0

16.8

14.3

6.5 6.1

11.4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% o

f th

e re

spo

nd

ents


Apr 12 - Mar 13

Jul 11 - Jun 12

Jul 10 - Jun 11

Elected MembersCSI Scores


10 = Very Satisfied


March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013) Elected Members


Contact with Councillors and Mayor Three quarters of the respondents (75%) had not contacted a Councillor or the Mayor in the past year. A further 2% did not answer this question, presumably because they had no contact with the Elected Members.

Just over a fifth of the respondents have had contact with a Councillor or the Mayor in the past year (23%). This includes 2% who contacted them monthly and 20% who contacted them once a year.

The frequency of contacting a Councillor or the Mayor is similar to the previous results. The subgroups significantly more likely to have had contact with a Councillor or the Mayor in the past year included those:

With a household income over $70,000 (30% of the subgroup).

Who voted in the last Council elections (27% of the subgroup).

Who pay rates (26% of the subgroup).

Satisfaction with the Mayor or the Councillors by whether contacted or not Respondents who had contact with an Elected Member in the past 12 months (n = 168) were as satisfied with the Elected Members as those who had no contact with them. Less than half of those who had contact with the Elected Members (42%) were satisfied, while 32% were neutral and 20% were dissatisfied. The figures were 45%, 32% and 10% respectively for those who had no contact with an Elected Member in the past 12 months. The CSI score was 59.7 for those who had contact with an Elected Member in the past 12 months versus 62.7 for those who had none.

-70.9

-76.4

-74.1

-73.9

-81.8

-80.3

-75.2

-75.7

-79.5

-77.8

-75.4

-75.1

4

3

3

4

2

3

3

3

2

2

2

2

21

19

13

16

12

12

15

16

15

18

22

20

26.1

23.2

16.5

21.4

16.0

15.1

19.4

19.4

16.7

20.9

23.7

22.8

-100.0 -75.0 -50.0 -25.0 0.0 25.0 50.0

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Jul 06 - Jun 07

Jul 07 - Jun 08

Jul 08 - Jun 09

Jul 09 - Jun 10

Jul 10 - Jun 11

Jul 11 - Jun 12

Apr 12 - Mar 13

% of the sample

Not in the past 12 months Daily Weekly

Monthly Yearly Don't know

Any Contact

1.73.4

6.98.0

5.3

13.6 12.9

7.9

18.4

8.8

7.1

2.3

1.0 1.8

4.6 5.3

12.3

15.1

19.7

13.4

6.0 5.6

0

10

20

30

40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% o

f th

e re

spo

nd

ents


Contact with Elected Members (n = 168)

No contact with Elected Members (n = 520)

CSI ScoresSatisfaction with the

Elected Members of CouncilContact in last 12 months = 59.7

No contact in past 12 months = 62.7

10 = Very Satisfied


Elected Members March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013)


Satisfaction with the Mayor or the Councillors: Trends on an Annual Basis The following chart shows the CSI scores for the Overall Performance of the Elected Members of Council. The current CSI score of 62.0 is up 0.6 points from the 2012 result. This is still the second lowest recorded since 2004 and is on par with the downward trend in CSI scores since 2005.

Satisfaction with the Mayor or the Councillors: Trends on a Quarterly Basis The following chart shows the quarterly trend in the CSI scores for the Overall Performance of the Elected Members of Council. The latest quarter‟s CSI score of 64.8 is up 2.4 points from the previous quarterly result and 5.8 points above the low recorded in June 2012. There appears to be a rising trend in the CSI Scores for the past three quarters.

57.8

74.4 73.7

78.3

72.870.6 71.5

67.9

61.4 62.0

50

60

70

80

90

100

20

04

20

05

20

06

Jul 0

6 -

Jun

07

Jul 0

7 -

Jun

08

Jul 0

8 -

Jun

09

Jul 0

9 -

Jun

10

Jul 1

0 -

Jun

11

Jul 1

1 -

Jun

12

Ap

r 1

2 -

Mar

13

CSI

Sco


Annual CSI score

Trend

78.279.579.6

75.9

69.9

74.472.1

74.472.9

70.770.069.071.970.8

72.970.5

68.967.568.167.366.9

60.760.159.0

61.962.464.8

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sep

t 0

6 Q

tr

Dec

06

Qtr

Mar

07

Qtr

Jun

07

Qtr

Sep

07

Qtr

Dec

07

Qtr

Mar

08

Qtr

Jun

08

Qtr

Sep

08

Qtr

Dec

08

Qtr

Mar

09

Qtr

Jun

09

Qtr

Sep

09

Qtr

Dec

09

Qtr

Mar

10

Qtr

Jun

10

Qtr

Sep

10

Qtr

Dec

10

Qtr

Mar

11

Qtr

Jun

11

Qtr

Sep

11

Qtr

Dec

11

Qtr

Mar

12

Qtr

Jun

12

Qtr

Sep

12

Qtr

Dec

12

Qtr

Mar

13

Qtr

CSI

Sco

res

Quarterly CSI Scores and Trend CSI score

Trend

March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013) Elected Members


Satisfaction with the performance of the Elected Members of Council by demographics The chart compares the variables which appear to have a significant impact on satisfaction with the Elected Members.

Most of the demographic subgroups of interest rate the overall performance of the Elected Members of Council in the past year with CSI scores that rate fair but as needing improvement (CSI scores 62 - 67).

The variables which appear to have had a noticeable effect include:

Respondents who are renting were significantly more satisfied with the Elected Members than those who owned their own homes (CSI score 73.3 and 56.7 respectively).

Respondents who thought they received good value for their rates were significantly more satisfied with the Elected Members than those who did not think they received good value for their rates (CSI score 63.1 and 29.9 respectively).

Respondents who were very satisfied with the Overall Performance of the Council in the past 12 months (scores 9 or 10) were significantly more satisfied with the Elected Members (CSI score 86.7) versus 64.4 for those who rated the Overall Performance of the Council with scores of 7 or 8 and 41.2 for those who rated the Overall Performance of the Council with a score of 0 - 6.

Respondents who were very satisfied with Hamilton as a place to live (scores 9 or 10) were significantly more satisfied with the Elected Members (CSI score 69.8) versus 56.4 for those who rated Hamilton as a place to live with scores of 7 or 8 and a CSI score of 42.8 for those who rated Hamilton as a place to live with a score of 0 - 6.

Respondents who thought the overall quality of Council facilities and services had greatly improved over the last year (scores 9 or 10) were significantly more satisfied with the Elected Members (CSI score 84.5) versus a CSI score of 48.1 for those who rated the quality improvements with scores of 0 to 6.

62.0

62.160.963.1

60.764.3

59.064.7

74.763.0

57.560.6

57.556.3

68.476.3

58.862.1

67.4

71.865.9

55.7

56.773.3

56.062.9

59.668.2

59.762.7

57.573.1

29.953.2

63.1

41.264.4

86.7

42.856.4

69.8

48.162.1

84.5

701

9319415516990

305396

33219265175

473647886

327114260

134207253

519181

92609

531170

168520

538163

48152325

195358110

54295350

209346113

0 20 40 60 80 100

Apr 12 - Mar 13

Beerescourt/PuketeChartwell/FairfieldHam East/HillcrestDinsdale/Nawton

Melville/Ham Lake

MenWomen

Under 25 years26 - 45 years46 - 64 years

65+ years

European descentNew ZealanderMaori descent

Other

Work full timePart time

Not working

Less than $30,000$30,000 to $70,000More than $70,000

Own homeRenting

Own businessNot Own business

Voted last electionDidn't vote

Contacted Elected MembersNo contact

Pay ratesDon't pay rates

Rates value poorValue rates neutral

Rates value good

Overall (0 - 6)Overall (7 - 8)Overall (9-10)

Place to live (0 - 6)Place to live (7 - 8)Place to live (9-10)

Quality (0 - 6)Quality (7 - 8)Quality (9-10)

CSI ScoreCSI score # of respondents

Hamilton as a place to live March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013)


4.4 Hamilton as a place to live

Respondents were asked „Using the same scale where 0 = very dissatisfied and 10 = very satisfied, how do you rate Hamilton as a place to live?‟

The vast majority of respondents (91%) are satisfied with Hamilton as a place to live (scores of 7 – 10). A quarter of the sample (26%) rated Hamilton as a place to live with a score of 10 while a further 23% rated this at 9. The mode was a score of 8 (29%).

Less than a tenth of the sample (8.2%) were neutral (scores 4 – 6) while only seven respondents (1.0%) were dissatisfied with Hamilton as a place to live (scores 0 – 3). The CSI score was 83.6, a score that reflects exceptional customer satisfaction. This is up 0.2 points from the July 2011 - June 2012 CSI score.

0.1 0.2 0.7 1.2

2.7

4.3

12.9

28.5

22.9

26.3

0

10

20

30

40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% o

f th

e re

spo

nd

ents


Apr 12 - Mar 13

Jul 11 - Jun 12

Jul 10 - Jun 11

Hamilton as a place to live CSI Scores


10 = Very Satisfied


March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013)Hamilton as a place to live


Satisfaction with Hamilton as a place to live: Trends on an Annual Basis The following chart shows the CSI scores for Hamilton as a place to live have varied only 2.3 points for the past nine years. The current CSI score of 83.6 is up 0.2 points from that recorded in July 2011 – June 2012 and remains on par with the current trend line.

Satisfaction with Hamilton as a place to live: Trends on a Quarterly Basis The following chart shows the quarterly trend in the CSI scores for Hamilton as a place to live. This quarter, the CSI of 84.4 is down 1.0 points from the previous quarter‟s result. The latest quarter‟s CSI score is in the middle end of the range recorded to date and is on par with the trend line.

81.682.8

81.683.8

82.3 83.0 82.4 83.2 83.4 83.6

70

80

90

100

20

04

20

05

20

06

Jul 0

6 -

Jun

07

Jul 0

7 -

Jun

08

Jul 0

8 -

Jun

09

Jul 0

9 -

Jun

10

Jul 1

0 -

Jun

11

Jul 1

1 -

Jun

12

Ap

r 1

2 -

Mar

13

CSI

Sco


Annual CSI score

Trend

82.883.9

85.9

82.5

82.080.6

83.782.9

84.2

82.3

83.182.5

81.4

83.5

81.2

83.4

82.3

85.2

82.682.8

82.1

83.3

85.4

82.5

82.1

85.484.4

70

80

90

100

Sep

t 0

6 Q

tr

Dec

06

Qtr

Mar

07

Qtr

Jun

07

Qtr

Sep

07

Qtr

Dec

07

Qtr

Mar

08

Qtr

Jun

08

Qtr

Sep

08

Qtr

Dec

08

Qtr

Mar

09

Qtr

Jun

09

Qtr

Sep

09

Qtr

Dec

09

Qtr

Mar

10

Qtr

Jun

10

Qtr

Sep

10

Qtr

Dec

10

Qtr

Mar

11

Qtr

Jun

11

Qtr

Sep

11

Qtr

Dec

11

Qtr

Mar

12

Qtr

Jun

12

Qtr

Sep

12

Qtr

Dec

12

Qtr

Mar

13

Qtr

CSI

Sco

res

Quarterly CSI Scores and TrendCSI score

Trend

Hamilton as a place to live March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013)


Satisfaction with Hamilton as a place to live by demographics There is some variation in the CSI scores for satisfaction with Hamilton as a place to live between the demographic subgroups. The chart opposite compares these variables.

Most of the demographic subgroups of interest rate Hamilton as a place to live with high levels of satisfaction.

The variables that appear to have the greatest impact on the satisfaction with Hamilton as a place to live are:

Those in the 65+ age bracket (CSI score 87.2) are more satisfied than those in the other age brackets (CSI scores 82.7 – 83.4).

Respondents who thought they got good value for their rates were significantly more satisfied with Hamilton as a place to live (CSI score 86.1) versus 70.1 for those who rated the value of rates as poor.

Respondents who were very satisfied with the Overall Performance of the Council in the past 12 months (scores 9 or 10) were significantly more satisfied with Hamilton as a place to live (CSI score 93.7) versus 84.1 for those who rated the Overall Performance of the Council with scores of 7 or 8 and 77.1 for those who rated the Overall Performance of the Council with a score of 0 - 6.

Respondents who thought the overall quality of Council facilities and services had greatly improved over the last year (scores 9 or 10) were significantly more satisfied with Hamilton as a place to live (CSI score 95.5) versus a CSI score of 77.0 for those who rated the quality improvements with scores of 0 to 6.

83.6

84.0

84.2

82.5

84.5

82.4

83.6

83.6

82.8

83.4

82.7

87.2

82.1

81.6

85.8

88.4

83.0

82.5

85.2

88.6

84.2

81.4

82.3

86.1

82.6

83.8

84.1

82.6

83.0

85.0

70.1

80.6

86.1

77.1

84.1

93.7

77.0

83.5

95.5

701

93

194

155

169

90

305

396

33

219

265

175

473

64

78

86

327

114

260

134

207

253

519

181

92

609

531

170

538

163

48

152

325

195

358

110

209

346

113

0 20 40 60 80 100

Apr 12 - Mar 13

Beerescourt/Pukete

Chartwell/Fairfield

Ham East/Hillcrest

Dinsdale/Nawton

Melville/Ham Lake

Men

Women

Under 25 years

26 - 45 years

46 - 64 years

65+ years

European descent

New Zealander

Maori descent

Other

Work full time

Part time

Not working

Less than $30,000

$30,000 to $70,000

More than $70,000

Own home

Renting

Own business

Not Own business

Voted last election

Didn't vote

Pay rates

Don't pay rates

Rates value poor

Value rates neutral

Rates value good

Overall (0 - 6)

Overall (7 - 8)

Overall (9-10)

Quality (0 - 6)

Quality (7 - 8)

Quality (9-10)

CSI Score


March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013)Hamilton as a place to live


4.4a Pride in Hamilton’s look and feel

Respondents were asked „Using the scale where 0 = Strongly Disagree and 10 is Strongly Agree, how strongly do you agree or disagree with the statement ‘I have pride in Hamilton’s look and feel’?‟

Four fifths of the respondents, (81%) agreed that they had pride in Hamilton‟s look and feel, including 26% who rated this with a score of 10 (strongly agreed). Only 5 respondents (1.5%) disagreed (Scores 0 – 3) that they had pride in Hamilton‟s look and feel. A sixth of the respondents (16%) neither agreed nor disagreed that they had pride in Hamilton‟s look and feel (score of 4 – 6). The Agreement Index is 79.8, which reflects general agreement with this statement.

0.41.1

2.9

7.5

5.8

14.1

27.3

13.8

25.8

0

10

20

30

40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% o

f re

sponde

nts

Apr 12 - Mar 13

0 = Strongly

Disagree

10 = Strongly Agree

Pride in Hamilton’slook and feel

Agreement IndexApr 12 - Mar 13 = 79.8

Residential Rates March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013)


4.5. Residential Rates

Payment of rates Respondents were asked if they paid residential or commercial rates to Council.

Two thirds of the respondents (69%) said they paid residential rates, including 3% who paid both residential and commercial rates. Two respondents (0.3%) paid only commercial rates.

The balance of the sample (31%) said they did not pay rates.

Value for rates Those that did pay residential rates were then asked „Thinking now about all Council provided services and facilities, and using a 10 point scale where 0 = very poor and 10 = very good, overall, what value do you think you get from residential rates?‟

The majority of respondents who paid residential rates (n = 535) thought they received good value for their residential rates, (60%) (scores of 7 – 10) although only 5% rated the value for money with a score of 10. A further 6% rated this at 9 and the mode was a score of 7 (28%).

Only 9.4% of those who paid residential rates thought they received poor value (scores 0 – 3) while 28% rated the value of residential rates as neutral with scores that ranged from 4 to 6.

65.4

64.5

67.4

68.1

66.4

68.3

71.2

69.9

3.4

3.2

2.8

2.8

3.7

3.1

2.1

2.3

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

-30.8

-32.3

-29.1

-28.2

-28.6

-28.0

-25.8

-27.1

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Apr 12 - Mar 13

Jul 11 - Jun 12

Jul 10 - Jun 11

Jul 09 - Jun 10

Jul 08 - Jun 09

Jul 07 - Jun 08

Jul 06 - Jun 07

2006

% of the sample

Residential Rates Both Commercial Rates No rates

2.10.6

2.44.3

5.8

9.6

12.7

27.7

21.2

6.34.9

0

10

20

30

40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% o

f th

e re

spo

nd

ents

Value Rating (0 = very poor to 10 = very good)

Apr 12 - Mar 13

Jul 11 - Jun 12

Jul 10 - Jun 11

Residential RatesValue Index

Apr 12 - Mar 13 = 65.1Jul 11 - Jun 12 = 66.5Jul 10 - Jun 11 = 68.9

10 = Very Good0 = Very Poor

March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013) Residential Rates


Value for Rates: Trends on an Annual Basis Historically there have been rises and falls in the Value Index for rates. The Value Index has decreased 1.4 points from June 2012. The Index of 65.1 for April 2012 – March 2013 is the lowest recorded since 2002. This is below the downward trend seen over the previous eight years.

Value for Rates: Trends on a Quarterly Basis The following chart shows the quarterly trend in the Value Index for the value from residential rates. The Index for the March 2013 quarter is up 1.8 points from the previous quarter to 69.2. The latest quarter‟s Index is again at the higher end of the range of results and above the downward trend line.

57.059.0

63.0

67.0 67.065.0

60.0 59.0 60.0

63.0 63.8

66.4 66.8

70.869.5 69.2

68.1 68.6 67.768.9

66.565.1

45

55

65

75

85

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

Jul 0

6 -

Jun

07

Jul 0

7 -

Jun

08

Jul 0

8 -

Jun

09

Jul 0

9 -

Jun

10

Jul 1

0 -

Jun

11

Jul 1

1 -

Jun

12

Ap

r 1

2 -

Mar

13

Val

ue

Ind

ex Residential Rates Value Index and Annual Trend

Value Index

Trend

70.871.3

67.667.0

64.2

68.169.1

71.7

68.668.368.768.6

65.4

67.568.469.369.770.0

67.867.9

65.8

67.3

69.8

63.6

60.2

67.469.2

50

60

70

80

90

Sep

t 0

6 Q

tr

Dec

06

Qtr

Mar

07

Qtr

Jun

07

Qtr

Sep

07

Qtr

Dec

07

Qtr

Mar

08

Qtr

Jun

08

Qtr

Sep

08

Qtr

Dec

08

Qtr

Mar

09

Qtr

Jun

09

Qtr

Sep

09

Qtr

Dec

09

Qtr

Mar

10

Qtr

Jun

10

Qtr

Sep

10

Qtr

Dec

10

Qtr

Mar

11

Qtr

Jun

11

Qtr

Sep

11

Qtr

Dec

11

Qtr

Mar

12

Qtr

Jun

12

Qtr

Sep

12

Qtr

Dec

12

Qtr

Mar

13

Qtr

Val

ue

Ind

ex

Quarterly Value Index Scores and TrendValue Index

Trend



Comparing value of residential rates by year The chart opposite compares respondent‟s perceived value from residential rates by year.

A Value Index of 50 means that on average, respondents feel that they get neither good nor poor value from their rates, a score of 75 reflects excellent value.

Over the past 20 years, the perceived value of residential rates appears to have cycled, reaching a high Value Index of 67.0 in 1994 and 1995 and rising to 70.8 in 2005.

For the four quarters from April 2012 – March 2013, half of the respondents who paid residential rates (49%) felt they received good value from their residential rates, while a further 11% felt they received extremely good value.

Only 6.7% felt they received poor value from their residential rates, while a further 2.7% felt they received extremely poor value.

The Value Index is 65.1, down 1.4 points from the July 2011 – June 2012 result but 5.7 points lower than the 70.8 recorded in 2005.

-13

-12

-10

-5

-5

-7

-9

-9

-14

-10

-10

-4

-5

-3

-3

-4

-6

-3

-4

-3

-3

-7

42

44

54

60

62

56

37

37

50

54

54

52

51

55

56

50

52

50

47

55

54

49

2

2

3

5

3

5

5

5

5

6

8

10

9

13

12

14

13

12

15

12

8

11

3

6

5

6

6

4

13

13

1

5

4

4

3

2

2

4

2

57.0

59.0

63.0

67.0

67.0

65.0

60.0

59.0

60.0

63.0

63.8

66.4

66.8

70.8

69.5

69.2

68.1

68.6

67.7

68.9

66.5

65.1

-20 0 20 40 60 80 100

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Jul 06 - Jun 07

Jul 07 - Jun 08

Jul 08 - Jun 09

Jul 09 - Jun 10

Jul 10 - Jun 11

Jul 11 - Jun 12

Apr 12 - Mar 13

% of respondents

Extremely poor Poor Good Don't know Value Index

March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013) Residential Rates


Value of residential rates by demographics There is some variation in the Value Index (VI) between the demographic subgroups. The chart opposite compares these variables.

Most of the demographic subgroups rate the value from residential rates with reasonably high scores.

The variables that appear to have the greatest impact on the value the respondent gets from their residential rates are:

Respondents who rent were significantly more satisfied with the value of their rates (VI 75.9) versus 64.0 for those who live in their own home.

Respondents who were very satisfied with the Overall Performance of the Council in the past 12 months (scores 9 or 10) were significantly more satisfied with the value of their rates (VI 81.5) versus 68.5 for those who rated the Overall Performance of the Council with scores of 7 or 8 and 53.0 for those who rated the Overall Performance of the Council with a score of 0 - 6.

Respondents who rated Hamilton as a place to live with scores of 9 or 10 were significantly more satisfied with the value of their rates (VI 71.5) versus 61.9 for those who rated Hamilton as a place to live with scores of 7 or 8 and 46.7 for those who rated Hamilton as a place to live with scores of 0 - 6.

Respondents who thought the overall quality of Council facilities and services had greatly improved over the last year (scores 9 or 10) were significantly more satisfied with the value of their rates (VI 79.5) versus 56.3 for those who rated the quality improvements with scores of 0 to 6.

65.1

61.5

67.1

67.0

63.3

65.1

64.2

65.8

64.0

63.8

70.1

65.2

64.1

62.3

67.0

62.6

70.5

66.5

69.9

66.4

62.9

64.0

75.9

62.2

65.6

53.0

68.5

81.5

46.7

61.9

71.5

56.3

67.8

79.5

535

74

155

107

132

67

232

303

139

224

155

394

55

38

48

261

87

187

87

152

218

503

31

80

455

168

282

59

40

240

253

172

266

72

0 20 40 60 80 100

Apr 12 - Mar 13

Beerescourt/Pukete

Chartwell/Fairfield

Ham East/Hillcrest

Dinsdale/Nawton

Melville/Ham Lake

Men

Women

26 - 45 years

46 - 64 years

65+ years

European descent

New Zealander

Maori descent

Other

Work full time

Part time

Not working

Less than $30,000

$30,000 to $70,000

More than $70,000

Own home

Renting

Own business

Not Own business

Overall (0 - 6)

Overall (7 - 8)

Overall (9-10)




Quality (0 - 6)

Quality (7 - 8)

Quality (9-10)

Value IndexValue Index # of respondents



Value from Rates by Overall Satisfaction The following chart shows there is a direct relationship between value for rates and satisfaction with the Overall Performance of Council. Those who rated the Overall Performance of Council with a score of 10 (Very Satisfied; n = 30) rate the value from rates with a Value Index of 81.9. Conversely, those who rate the Overall Performance of Council with a score of 4 or less (Dissatisfied; n = 36) rate the value from rates with a Value Index of just 35.9. It appears the more satisfied the respondent is with the Overall Performance of Council, the higher the perceived value from rates.

Overall Satisfaction by Value from Rates The following chart shows there is also a direct relationship between satisfaction with the Overall Performance of Council and Value for Rates. Those who rated the Value from Rates with a score of 10 (Good Value; n = 28) rate the Overall Performance of Council with a CSI score of 89.7. Conversely, those who rate the Value from Rates with a score of 4 or less (Poor Value; n = 78) rate the Overall Performance of Council with a CSI score of just 52.5. It appears the higher the perceived value from rates, the more satisfied the respondent is with the Overall performance of Council.

This raises the question is it value from rates that is driving satisfaction or satisfaction that is driving the perceived value? The analysis infers that both situations are affecting the results.

35.9

57.4

59.5

65.5

71.4

81.2

81.9

36

51

81

132

150

29

30

0 20 40 60 80 100

4 or less

5

6

7

8

9

10 = Very Satisfied

Value Index

Ove

rall

Sati

sfac

tio

n w

ith

Co

un

cil

Value Index

# of respondents

52.5

61.8

65.3

70.6

76.5

79.6

89.7

78

53

69

149

116

32

28

0 20 40 60 80 100

4 or less

5

6

7

8

9

10 = Good Value

CSI Score

Val

ue

fro

m R

esi

de

nti

al R

ate

s

CSI score

# of Respondents

March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013) Quality of Council facilities and services


4.6 Quality of Council facilities and services Respondents were asked „Using a 10 point scale where 0 = greatly deteriorated and 10 = greatly improved, overall how would you rate the quality of Council facilities and services in the past 12 months?‟

Two thirds of the respondents, (65%) felt the quality of Council facilities and services had improved in the past year, including 11% who rated this with a score of 10 (greatly improved). Only 14 respondents (1.9%) felt the quality had deteriorated and only four respondents (0.6%) felt it had greatly deteriorated (score of 0). The Index is 71.3, down 0.6 points from the July 2011 – June 2012 result.

0.6 0.8 0.5

3.6

14.1

10.6

20.8

27.4

6.6

10.6

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% o

f re

spondents

Apr 12 - Mar 13

Jul 11 - Jun 12

Jul 10 - Jun 11

0 = Greatly

deteriorated

10 = Greatly improved

Quality of Council's services and facilities

Improvement Index Apr 12 - Mar 12 = 71.3Jul 11 - Jun 12 = 71.9Jul 10 - Jun 11 = 72.2Jul 09 - Jun 10 = 74.4

Quality of Council facilities and services March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013)


Quality Improvement Index: Trends on an Annual Basis The following chart shows the trend with the Improvement Index of Council facilities and services over the period 1993 to March 2013. The current result of 71.3 is down 0.6 points from the July 2011 – June 2012 result. This is again at the lower end of the range of recent results and slightly below the current flat trend line.

Quality Improvement Index: Trends on a Quarterly Basis The following chart shows the quarterly trend in the Index for the improvement in the quality of Council‟s facilities and services. The Index is 74.6 for the March 2013 quarter, an increase of 2.4 points over the previous quarter. The latest quarter‟s Index is again at the higher end of the range recorded by this quarterly monitor and is above the declining trend line of the last 27 quarters.

67.0 67.0 68.0

65.0

61.059.0

57.0 58.060.0

62.063.3

71.8 72.5

71.1

75.673.3 72.9

74.472.2

71.9 71.3

50

60

70

80

90

19

93

19

93

2

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

Jul 0

6 -

Jun

07

Jul 0

7 -

Jun

08

Jul 0

8 -

Jun

09

Jul 0

9 -

Jun

10

Jul 1

0 -

Jun

11

Jul 1

1 -

Jun

12

Ap

r 1

2 -

Mar

13

Imp

rove

men

t In

dex Improvement Index and Trend: Council Facilities and Services

Improvement Index

74.474.476.276.7

75.3

71.073.872.7

75.874.1

71.873.072.7

76.875.2

71.773.673.172.171.971.5

73.472.0

73.7

68.769.8

72.274.6

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sep

t 0

6 Q

tr

Sep

t 0

6 Q

tr2

Dec

06

Qtr

Mar

07

Qtr

Jun

07

Qtr

Sep

07

Qtr

Dec

07

Qtr

Mar

08

Qtr

Jun

08

Qtr

Sep

08

Qtr

Dec

08

Qtr

Mar

09

Qtr

Jun

09

Qtr

Sep

09

Qtr

Dec

09

Qtr

Mar

10

Qtr

Jun

10

Qtr

Sep

10

Qtr

Dec

10

Qtr

Mar

11

Qtr

Jun

11

Qtr

Sep

11

Qtr

Dec

11

Qtr

Mar

12

Qtr

Jun

12

Qtr

Sep

12

Qtr

Dec

12

Qtr

Mar

13

Qtr

Imp

rove

men

tIn

dex

Quarterly CSI Scores and Trend: Council Facilities and Services

Improvement Index

Trend

March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013) Quality of Council facilities and services


Quality Improvement Index (QII) by demographics There was limited variation in the proportion of those who felt the quality of Council facilities and services had improved in the past year by the demographic subgroups. The chart opposite compares these variables.

The variables that appear to have had the greatest impact on how the respondent rates whether the quality of Council facilities and services had improved in the past year are:

Household income has a noticeable impact with those from the highest income stream appearing least likely to think the quality had improved (QII 66.9).

Those who rent are more likely to think the quality had improved (QII 77.2).

Those who thought they received good value from their rates were significantly more likely to think the quality of facilities and services had improved (QII 73.9) versus 64.1 for those who thought the value of rates was neutral and 53.1 for those who thought the value of rates was poor.

Respondents who were very satisfied with the Overall Performance of the Council in the past 12 months (scores 9 or 10) were significantly more likely to think the quality of facilities and services had improved (QII 88.4) versus 59.4 for those who rated the Overall Performance of Council with scores from 0 – 6.

Respondents who rated Hamilton as a place to live with scores of 9 or 10 were significantly more likely to think the quality of facilities and services had improved (QII 77.4), versus 67.9 for those who rated Hamilton as a place to live with scores of 7 or 8 and 54.1 for those who rated Hamilton as a place to live with scores of 0 to 6.

71.3

71.3

72.3

71.2

68.6

74.2

70.6

71.9

78.3

70.4

69.3

74.0

69.7

65.3

72.2

78.6

69.4

72.1

74.0

76.8

74.5

66.9

68.2

77.2

68.3

71.8

69.4

75.5

53.1

64.1

73.9

59.4

71.8

88.4

54.1

67.9

77.4

535

74

155

107

132

67

232

303

9

139

224

155

394

55

38

48

261

87

187

87

152

218

503

31

80

455

535

48

152

325

168

282

59

40

240

253

0 20 40 60 80 100

Apr 12 - Mar 13

Beerescourt/Pukete

Chartwell/Fairfield

Ham East/Hillcrest

Dinsdale/Nawton

Melville/Ham Lake

Men

Women

Under 25 years

26 - 45 years

46 - 64 years

65+ years

European descent

New Zealander

Maori descent

Other

Work full time

Part time

Not working

Less than $30,000

$30,000 to $70,000

More than $70,000

Own home

Renting

Own business

Not Own business

Pay rates

Don't pay rates

Rates value poor

Value rates neutral

Rates value good

Overall (0 - 6)

Overall (7 - 8)

Overall (9-10)




Improvement Index

Quality Improvement Index # of respondents

Quality of Council facilities and services March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013)


Comparison of years Respondents were asked overall, if the quality of Council facilities and services had changed in the past year.

The opposite chart compares this data for the past 20 years (except 1997), from 1991 to March 2013.

The Improvement Index is down 0.6 points from the July 2011 – June 2012 result.

It is important to note that an Improvement Index of 51 or more represents an improvement upon the previous year.

With the Index being above 50 each year, this infers that the respondents believe the quality of Council facilities and services have improved each year. However, over the last ten years, respondents have perceived greater improvements.

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-3

-2

-2

-4

-6

-5

-3

-1

-1

-1

-6

-6

48

51

48

53

52

50

50

45

48

50

45

43

38

30

29

34

41

44

51

52

44

33

17

17

18

21

17

20

24

17

15

18

5

4

2

2

3

2

3

6

8

7

4

4

71.3

71.9

72.2

74.4

72.9

73.3

75.6

71.1

72.5

71.8

63.3

62.0

60.0

58.0

57.0

59.0

61.0

65.0

68.0

67.0

61.0

58.0

-20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Apr 12 - Mar 13

Jul 11 - Jun 12

Jul 10 - Jun 11

Jul 09 - Jun 10

Jul 08 - Jun 09

Jul 07 - Jun 08

Jul 06 - Jun 07

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

% of respondents

Greatly deteriorated Deteriorated

Greatly deteriorated Greatly improved

Improvement Index

March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013) Involvement in Decision Making


4.7 Involvement in Decision Making

How often involved? Respondents were asked „How often have you been involved in Council decision making (e.g. making submissions to plans, involved in working parties etc) in the past 12 months?‟

Over four fifths of the respondents, (81%) had not been involved in Council decision making in the past 12 months.

A sixth of the respondents (16%) said they had been involved at least once in the past 12 months. Most (14%) said they were involved in Council decision making on a yearly basis.

A few respondents, (3%) did not know if they had been involved in Council decision making in the past year.

Satisfaction with the Process used for Council decision making Respondents that had been involved in Council decision making (n = 117) were then asked to rate their satisfaction with the process Council used for this involvement and also with the outcome of your being involved in Council decision making (e.g. submissions etc.).

Two thirds of the respondents (69%) were satisfied (scores 7-10) with the process Council used for their involvement in decision making. A quarter of this subgroup (25%) rated this with a score of 9 or 10 (exceeded expectations). The mode was a score of 7 (26%).

A fifth of the respondents (22%) rated this with scores that were neutral (scores 4 - 6), while eight respondents (7%) rated this with scores that reflected dissatisfaction (scores 0 - 3). The CSI score is 71.5, up 1.9 points from the July 2011 - June 2012 result. The process Council used for involvement in decision making again rates as good but with the potential for improvement.

-81.4

-81.8

-84.8

-85.4

-80.9

-81.8

-82.6

-74.9

14

15

11

8

12

10

12

19

15.9

16.7

12.2

8.6

13.2

10.6

12.7

20.1

-100.0 -80.0 -60.0 -40.0 -20.0 0.0 20.0 40.0

Apr 12 - Mar 13

Jul 11 - Jun 12

Jul 10 - Jun 11

Jul 09 - Jun 10

Jul 08 - Jun 09

Jul 07 - Jun 08

Jul 06 - Jun 07

2006

% of the sample


Weekly Monthly

Yearly Don't know

Involved at all

0.51.5

3.51.7

3.4

5.9

12.2

25.5

18.4

8.3

16.6

0

10

20

30

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% o

f th

e re

spo

nd

ents


Apr 12 - Mar 13

Jul 11 - Jun 12

Jul 10 - Jun 11

Process used for Decision Making - CSI Score


10 = Very Satisfied


Involvement in Decision Making March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013)


Satisfaction with the process Council used for this involvement: Trends on an Annual Basis

The following chart shows the CSI scores for the process Council used for involvement in Council decision making (e.g. making submissions to draft plans, involved in working parties etc.) The current CSI score of 71.5 is 1.9 points higher than that recorded in July 2011 – June 2012.

Satisfaction with the process Council used for this involvement: Trends on a Quarterly Basis

Caution: Small numbers of respondents each quarter. The quarterly CSI score for the process Council used for involvement in Council decision making (e.g. making submissions to draft plans, involved in working parties etc.) is almost unchanged from last quarter at 69.4. The latest quarter‟s CSI score is in the middle of the range recorded by this quarterly monitor.

70.171.4

81.3

67.2

63.2 62.9

73.3

69.671.5

50

60

70

80

90

100

2005 2006 Jul 06 - Jun 08

Jul 07 - Jun 08 (n = 38)

Jul 08 - Jun 09 (n = 97)

Jul 09 - Jun 10 (n = 66)

Jul 10 - Jun 11 (n = 88)

Jul 11 - Jun 12 (n = 115)

Apr 12 - Mar 13 (n = 117)

CSI

Sco


Annual CSI score

Trend

72.9

89.6

62.6

68.6

75.4

59.8

72.3

63.5

68.4

55.1

65.6

54.1

64.466.9

82.9

67.1

74.2 74.2

66.6 66.6

70.773.3 72.9

69.5 69.4

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Mar

07

Qtr

(n

= 1

2)

Jun

07

Qtr

(n

= 1

1)

Sep

07

Qtr

(n

= 8

)

Dec

07

Qtr

(n

= 1

4)

Mar

08

Qtr

(n

= 9

)

Jun

08

Qtr

(n

= 7

)

Sep

08

Qtr

(n

= 1

8)

Dec

08

Qtr

(n

= 1

9)

Mar

09

Qtr

(n

= 2

2)

Jun

09

Qtr

(n

= 3

8)

Sep

09

Qtr

(n

= 2

0)

Dec

09

Qtr

(n

= 1

5)

Mar

10

Qtr

(n

= 1

4)

Jun

10

Qtr

(n

= 1

7)

Sep

10

Qtr

(n

= 1

9)

Dec

10

Qtr

(n

= 2

7)

Mar

11

Qtr

(n

= 2

5)

Jun

11

Qtr

(n

= 1

7)

Sep

11

Qtr

(n

= 2

0)

Dec

11

Qtr

(n

= 3

4)

Mar

12

Qtr

(n

= 2

5)

Jun

12

Qtr

(n

= 3

6)

Sep

12

Qtr

(n

= 2

4)

Dec

12

Qtr

(n

= 3

1)

Mar

13

Qtr

(n

= 2

6)

CSI

Sco

res

Quarterly CSI Scores and Trend

CSI score

Trend

March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013) Involvement in Decision Making


Satisfaction with the outcome of your being involved in Council decision making Respondents who had been involved in Council decision making (n = 117) were then asked to rate their satisfaction with the outcome of your being involved in Council decision making (e.g. submissions etc).

Over half of the respondents (62%) were satisfied (scores 7-10) with the outcome of their involvement in Council decision making. A quarter of this subgroup (24%) rated this with a score of 9 or 10 (exceeded expectations). The mode was a score of 8 (19.4%).

A fifth of the respondents (19%) rated this with scores that were neutral (scores 4 - 6), while 11 respondents (10%) rated this with scores that reflected dissatisfaction (scores 0 - 3). The remaining 9% of the respondents did not rate their satisfaction with the outcome of your being involved in Council decision making (e.g. submissions etc.). Presumably, this is because the outcome has not been finalised as yet.

The CSI score is 69.9, up 0.2 points from the July 2011 - June 2012 result. The outcome of their involvement in the Council decision making again rates as good but with the potential for improvement.

2.1

0.7

4.1

2.7

4.2

8.3

6.2

19.3 19.4

5.8

18.1

0

10

20

30

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% o

f th

e re

spo

nd

ents


Apr 12 - Mar 13

Jul 11 - Jun 12

Jul 10 - Jun 11

Outcome of the Decision Making - CSI Score


10 = Very Satisfied


Involvement in Decision Making March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013)


Satisfaction with the outcome of being involved in Council decision making: Trends on an Annual Basis

The following chart shows the CSI scores for the outcome of being involved in Council decision making (e.g. making submissions to draft plans, involved in working parties etc.). The current CSI score of 69.9 is 0.2 points higher than that recorded in July 2011 – June 2012. This is in the middle of the range but above the trend line.

Satisfaction with the outcome of being involved in Council decision making: Trends on a Quarterly Basis

Caution: Small numbers of respondents each quarter. The chart shows the quarterly trend in the CSI scores for the outcome of being involved in Council decision making (e.g. making submissions to draft plans, involved in working parties etc.). The CSI score has risen 2.1 points from last quarter to a CSI score of 70.8. The latest quarter‟s CSI score is in the middle of the range of results recorded by the quarterly monitor and on par with the rising trend line.

68.0 66.9

73.569.7

60.658.1

71.2 69.7 69.9

50

60

70

80

90

100

20

05

(n

= 9

2)

20

06

(n

= 9

2)

Jul 0

6 -

Jun

07

(n

= 3

1)

Jul 0

7 -

Jun

08

(n

= 3

8)

Jul 0

8 -

Jun

09

(n

= 9

7)

Jul 0

9 -

Jun

10

(n

= 6

6)

Jul 1

0 -

Jun

11

(n

= 8

8)

Jul 1

1 -

Jun

12

(n

= 1

15

)

Ap

r 1

2 -

Mar

13

(n

= 1

17

)

CSI

Sco


Annual CSI score

Trend

62.6

81.7

69.6

60.0

79.675.2

67.5

61.6

71.6

50.3

57.0

50.2

61.6

62.9

78.2

66.2

78.1

66.8 67.3 67.8

72.770.3 69.9 68.7

70.8

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Mar

07

Qtr

(n

= 1

2)

Jun

07

Qtr

(n

= 1

1)

Sep

07

Qtr

(n

= 8

)

Dec

07

Qtr

(n

= 1

4)

Mar

08

Qtr

(n

= 9

)

Jun

08

Qtr

(n

= 7

)

Sep

08

Qtr

(n

= 1

8)

Dec

08

Qtr

(n

= 1

9)

Mar

08

Qtr

(n

= 2

2)

Jun

09

Qtr

(n

= 3

8)

Sep

09

Qtr

(n

= 2

0)

Dec

09

Qtr

(n

= 1

5)

Mar

10

Qtr

(n

= 1

4)

Jun

10

Qtr

(n

= 1

7)

Sep

10

Qtr

(n

= 1

9)

Dec

10

Qtr

(n

= 2

7)

Mar

11

Qtr

(n

= 2

5)

Jun

11

Qtr

(n

= 1

7)

Sep

11

Qtr

(n

= 2

0)

Dec

11

Qtr

(n

= 3

4)

Mar

12

Qtr

(n

= 2

5)

Jun

12

Qtr

(n

= 3

6)

Sep

12

Qtr

(n

= 2

4)

Dec

12

Qtr

(n

= 3

1)

Mar

13

Qtr

(n

= 2

6)

CSI

Sco

res


Trend

March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013) Opportunities for involvement in decision making


4.8 Opportunities for involvement in decision making The respondents were asked the following „Council tries to ensure that the community has meaningful input into decision making on significant Council projects, processes and policy. Using a scale where 0 = very poor and 10 = very good, how would you rate the opportunities Council provides for community involvement in decision making (e.g. making submissions to plans, involvement in working parties etc.)?‟

A sixth of the respondents (16%) did not answer this question, presumably because they had not tried to be involved in Council decision making.

Under half of the respondents (42%) were satisfied that the Council provided good opportunities for community involvement in decision making (scores 7 – 10). The mode was a score of 5 (16%) but 13% rated this with a score of 9 or 10 (exceeded expectations).

An eighth of the respondents (12%) were dissatisfied that the Council provided good opportunities for community involvement in decision making (scores 0 – 3) while 31% rated this as neutral (scores 4 – 6).

The CSI score is 61.6 which is 0.5 points higher than the July 2011 - June 2012 result. The current CSI score rates as a fair performance but with potential to improve the opportunities for community involvement in Council decision making.

2.5

1.3

3.5

4.6 4.9

15.6

10.1

13.9

15.0

6.4 6.3

15.9

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Don't know

% o

f th

e re

spo

nd

ents


Apr 12 - Mar 13

Jul 11 - Jun 12

Jul 10 - Jun 11

Opportunities for involvement in decision making - CSI Score


10 = Very Satisfied


Opportunities for Involvement in Decision Making March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013)


Input into decision making A sixth of the sample (16%) did not know or did not answer this question this year.

An eighth of respondents rated the opportunities Council provides for community involvement in decision making as poor (12%) while 13% rated this as very good and 29% rate this as good.

The Index for the opportunities for community involvement in Council decision making is 61.6, up 0.5 points from the July 2011 - June 2012 result.

Input into decision making: Trends on an Annual Basis

The following chart shows the trend of the CSI scores for the opportunities Council provides for community involvement in decision making over the period 2001 to March 2013. The current result of 61.6 is up 0.5 points from July 2011 – June 2012. This is above the downward trend in the CSI scores since 2005.

29

30

30

30

30

30

32

38

13

11

9

13

13

9

15

14

-8

-8

-8

-7

-7

-6

-5

-6

-4

-4

-4

-4

-4

-5

-4

-4

16

20

21

20

20

22

20

15

61.6

61.1

59.9

62.8

62.8

60.5

65.4

66.3

-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Apr 12 - Mar 13

Jul 11 - Jun 12

Jul 10 - Jun 11

Jul 09 - Jun 10

Jul 09 - Jun 10

Jul 08 - Jun 09

Jul 07 - Jun 08

Jul 06 - Jun 07

% of respondents

Good Extremely good Extremely poor Poor Don't know/No reply Mean

59.0 58.5 58.659.8

67.2 66.9 66.3 65.4

60.5

62.8

59.961.1 61.6

40

50

60

70

80

90

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

Jul 0

6 -

Jun

07

Jul 0

7 -

Jun

08

Jul 0

8 -

Jun

09

Jul 0

9 -

Jun

10

Jul 1

0 -

Jun

11

Jul 1

1 -

Jun

12

Ap

r 1

2 -

Mar

13

CSI

Sco


Annual CSI score Trend

March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013) Opportunities for involvement in decision making


Input into decision making: Trends on a Quarterly Basis

The following chart shows the quarterly trend in the CSI scores for the opportunities Council provides for community involvement in decision making. The Index increased 0.3 points this quarter to a CSI score of 63.7. This is in the upper end of the range of results and is above the downward trend line for the quarterly CSI scores.

66.866.564.5

67.3

59.0

67.0

63.3

73.0

60.8

56.6

62.661.962.261.7

65.9

61.359.960.661.8

57.3

66.8

59.7

61.6

57.2

62.163.463.7

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sep

t 0

6 Q

tr

Dec

06

Qtr

Mar

07

Qtr

Jun

07

Qtr

Sep

07

Qtr

Dec

07

Qtr

Mar

08

Qtr

Jun

08

Qtr

Sep

08

Qtr

Dec

08

Qtr

Mar

09

Qtr

Jun

09

Qtr

Sep

09

Qtr

Dec

09

Qtr

Mar

10

Qtr

Jun

10

Qtr

Sep

10

Qtr

Dec

10

Qtr

Mar

11

Qtr

Jun

11

Qtr

Sep

11

Qtr

Dec

11

Qtr

Mar

12

Qtr

Jun

12

Qtr

Sep

12

Qtr

Dec

12

Qtr

Mar

13

Qtr

CSI

Sco

res


Trend

Council‟s provision of Information March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013)


4.9 Council’s provision of information The respondents were asked „Council tries to ensure that it provides adequate information to the community about its services, facilities, projects and plans. Using the same scale where 0 = very dissatisfied and 10 = very satisfied, how do you rate Council’s provision of this type of information?‟

Over half of the respondents (56%) were satisfied with the Council providing adequate information to the community about its services, facilities, projects and plans (scores 7 – 10). A fifth of the subgroup (19%) rated this with a score of 9 or 10 (exceeded expectations). The mode was a score of 8 (18.7%).

A number of respondents (7%) were dissatisfied with the Council providing this type of information (scores 0 – 3) while 28% rated this as neutral (scores 4 - 6). The remaining 9% did not answer this question. The CSI score is 68.0, up 1.6 points from the July 2011 – June 2012 result.

Council information The chart shows there has been little change in the proportion who rate Council’s provision of information (relating to services, facilities, projects and plans) as good/extremely good (56% versus 55% in the previous reading).

Conversely, the proportion who rate this as poor/extremely poor is down marginally on 7%.

The net effect is the CSI score is up 1.6 points to 68.0.

1.40.5 1.2

3.64.7

13.4

10.0

18.6 18.7

9.8 9.2

0

10

20

30

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% o

f th

e re

spo

nd

ents


Apr 12 - Mar 13

Jul 11 - Jun 12

Jul 10 - Jun 11

Council’s provision of information - CSI Score Apr 12 - Mar 13 = 68.0Jul 11 - Jun 12 = 66.4Jul 10 - Jun 11 = 68.0Jul 09 - Jun 10 = 68.6

10 = Very Satisfied


37

40

44

41

40

45

45

43

45

19

15

14

16

14

20

20

19

19

-5

-5

-6

-5

-4

-3

-3

-4

-3

-2

-3

-2

-1

-3

-2

-2

-2

-1

9

8

10

12

11

7

10

10

14

68.0

66.4

68.0

68.6

66.7

71.4

71.8

70.3

72.0

-20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Apr 12 - Mar 13

Jul 11 - Jun 12

Jul 10 - Jun 11

Jul 09 - Jun 10

Jul 08 - Jun 09

Jul 07 - Jun 08

Jul 06 - Jun 07

2006

2005

% of respondents

Good Extremely good Extremely poor

Poor Don't know CSI Score

March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013) Council‟s provision of Information


Provision of Council information: Trends on an Annual Basis

The following chart shows there has been an increase of 1.6 points in the CSI score of 68.0 for the provision of Council information (relating to services, facilities, projects and plans) this reading. The current CSI score is in the middle of the range and is above the declining trend line.

Provision of Council information: Trends on a Quarterly Basis

The following chart shows the quarterly trend in the CSI score for the provision of Council information (relating to services, facilities, projects and plans). The March 2013 Index is down 2.0 points to 68.7. The current Index is in the middle of the range recorded by this quarterly monitor and above the current downward trend line.

67.065.6

67.2 66.6

72.070.3

71.8 71.4

66.7

68.6 68.0

66.4

68.0

50

60

70

80

90

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

Jul 0

6 -

Jun

07

Jul 0

7 -

Jun

08

Jul 0

8 -

Jun

09

Jul 0

9 -

Jun

10

Jul 1

0 -

Jun

11

Jul 1

1 -

Jun

12

Ap

r 1

2 -

Mar

13

CSI

Sco


CSI score

Trend

71.972.171.671.6

67.1

72.971.1

74.2

67.8

63.1

68.167.667.967.7

71.7

67.1

69.568.868.1

65.7

70.2

64.1

67.7

64.2

68.3

70.768.7

50

60

70

80

90

Sep

t 0

6 Q

tr

Dec

06

Qtr

Mar

07

Qtr

Jun

07

Qtr

Sep

07

Qtr

Dec

07

Qtr

Mar

08

Qtr

Jun

08

Qtr

Sep

08

Qtr

Dec

08

Qtr

Mar

09

Qtr

Jun

09

Qtr

Sep

09

Qtr

Dec

09

Qtr

Mar

10

Qtr

Jun

10

Qtr

Sep

10

Qtr

Dec

10

Qtr

Mar

11

Qtr

Jun

11

Qtr

Sep

11

Qtr

Dec

11

Qtr

Mar

12

Qtr

Jun

12

Qtr

Sep

12

Qtr

Dec

12

Qtr

Mar

13

Qtr

CSI

Sco

res


Trend

Business Ownership March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013)


4.10 Business Ownership: Satisfaction with Services

Own/Operate own business An eighth of the respondents in the sample (13%) owned or operated their own business in Hamilton.

Respondents who owned or operated their own business (n = 92) were asked how many employees their company employed. Over half (59%) of the business owners employed 1 to 2 full time employees, while 19% employed 3 to 10 people and 10% employed over 10 full time equivalents.

The subgroups significantly more likely to operate their own business included those:

With a household income over $30,000 (16% of the subgroup) versus 5% for those with a household income under $30,000.

Men (18% of the subgroup) versus 10% for women

Those aged 26 – 45 years (15% of the subgroup) or aged 46 – 64 years (14% of the subgroup) versus 4% for those aged under 25 and 10% for those aged 65 or older

Satisfaction with the Overall Performance of Council Business ownership makes a small difference to how the respondents rated their satisfaction with the Overall Performance of Council. Slightly fewer of those who owned their own business are satisfied (65% versus 69% for those who don‟t own their own business). At the other end of the scale, business ownership appears to have a minor effect on dissatisfaction, with 5% of business owners and 3% of non-business owners being dissatisfied.

The CSI score was 68.1 for those who owned their own business versus 72.9 for those who didn‟t.

Own or operate own

business13.3%

Don't own a business

86.7%

2.5 2.20.6

2.4

6.3

17.6

30.8

25.7

3.1

5.7

0.5 0.5 0.41.5

2.6

7.9

12.1

21.2

28.8

8.710.3

0

10

20

30

40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% o

f th

e re

spo

nd

ents


Own business

Don't Own business


Own Business = 68.1Don’t Own Business = 72.9

10 = Very Satisfied


March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013) Personal Safety in Hamilton


4.11 Personal Safety in Hamilton

Safety in the Neighbourhood Respondents were asked the following „Thinking now about personal safety, and using a scale where 0 = very unsafe and 10 = very safe, overall how safe do you feel when in the neighbourhood you live in?‟

Four fifths of the respondents (82%) felt safe in their own neighbourhood, including 23% who rated this with a score of 10. A further 20% rated this at 9 and 27% rated this at 8.

Only 4.0% of the sample (26 respondents) felt unsafe in their own neighbourhood (scores 0 – 3), while 14% rated this as neutral (scores 4 – 6). The Safety Index for the local neighbourhood was 79.3, down 0.4 points from the June 2012 reading.

Feeling of safety in your area The chart shows there has been limited variation in the Index for respondents feeling safe in their neighbourhood.

Almost half of the respondents (42%) felt very safe and only a small proportion felt unsafe.

The Safety Index has been very steady over recent readings and is currently 79.3, down 0.4 points from June 2012.

0.6 0.11.1 1.9 2.2

4.86.9

13.2

26.6

19.7

22.5

0

10

20

30

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% o

f th

e re

spo

nd

ents

Safety Index (0 = very unsafe to 10 = very safe)

Apr 12 - Mar 13

Jul 11 - Jun 12

Jul 10 - Jun 11

Safety Index The neighbourhood where I live


10 = Very Safe

0 = Very Unsafe

40

38

39

40

40

40

43

41

46

42

45

45

42

43

41

38

37

41

79.3

79.7

79.7

79.3

79.5

77.7

78.2

76.8

80.6

-20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Apr 12 - Mar 13

Jul 11 - Jun 12

Jul 10 - Jun 11

Jul 09 - Jun 10

Jul 08 - Jun 09

Jul 07 - Jun 08

Jul 06 - Jun 07

2006

2005

% of respondents

Very unsafe Unsafe Safe Very safe Don't know Index

Personal Safety in Hamilton March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013)


Safety in the Central City Respondents were asked „Thinking now about personal safety, and using a scale where 0 = very unsafe and 10 = very safe, overall how safe do you feel when in Hamilton’s Central City area at night?‟

Less than half (46%) of the respondents felt safe in Hamilton‟s Central City area at night (versus 44% in June 2012). Only 4% rated this with a score of 10, while the mode was a score of 7 (18%).

A tenth of the respondents (10%) felt unsafe in Hamilton‟s Central City area at night (scores 0 – 3). A quarter of the respondents (26%) rated this as neutral, with scores that ranged from 4 to 6. The remaining 18% did not answer this question.

The Safety Index was 63.2, up 0.8 points from the June 2012 result of 62.4.

Feeling of safety in Hamilton Central City at night The chart shows the proportion of people who felt safe in the Central City is up marginally from the previous reading (46% versus 44% for June 2012).

Conversely, 10% of respondents rated the Central City as being unsafe or very unsafe this reading, unchanged from June 2012.

The net effect is the Safety Index of 63.2 was up 0.8 points from the June 2012 result.

2.11.0

3.14.0

6.58.0

11.2

18.4

16.6

6.5

4.4

18.2

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Don't know

% o

f th

e re

spo

nd

ents

Safety Index (0 = very unsafe to 10 = very safe)

Apr 12 - Mar 13

Jul 11 - Jun 12

Jul 10 - Jun 11

Safety Index - Hamilton’s Central City area at night


10 = Very Safe

0 = Very Unsafe

-7

-7

-6

-7

-7

-9

-8

-7

-6

-3

-3

-3

-3

-3

-6

-6

-2

-2

35

35

38

35

34

27

35

32

39

11

9

10

10

8

7

4

9

12

63.2

62.4

63.6

63.3

61.4

56.7

57.0

61.6

65.6

-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

Apr 12 - Mar 13

Jul 11 - Jun 12

Jul 10 - Jun 11

Jul 09 - Jun 10

Jul 08 - Jun 09

Jul 07 - Jun 08

Jul 06 - Jun 07

2006

2005

% of respondents

Very unsafe Unsafe Safe Very safe Don't know Index

March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013) Personal Safety in Hamilton


Council’s Night Patrol Team Respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction with the Council Night Patrol Team (employed to make the Central City safer in the evenings and weekends) using a scale where 0 is very dissatisfied to 10 being very satisfied.

Almost half of the sample (48%) did not answer this question, presumably because they had no knowledge of this service.

Among those that did answer, the majority (87%, which equates to 46% of the total sample) were satisfied (scores 7 – 10) with the Council Night Patrol Team. A quarter of the sample (26%) rated their satisfaction with a score of 9 or 10 (exceeded expectation). The mode was a score of 10 (18%).

Less than a tenth of the sample (7%) rated the Council Night Patrol Team as neutral (scores 4 – 6). No respondents (0%) were dissatisfied (scores of 0 – 3).

The CSI score for the Council Night Patrol Team was 83.7, 1.3 points higher than the 82.4 recorded in the June 2012 reading.

1.1 1.93.6

7.3

12.5

8.2

17.7

47.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Don't know

% o

f th

e re

spo

nd

ents


Apr 12 - Mar 13

Jul 11 - Jun 12

Jul 10 - Jun 11

Council Night Patrol TeamCSI Scores


10 = Very Satisfied


Personal Safety in Hamilton March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013)


The Council Night Patrol Team: Trends on an Annual Basis The CSI score for the Council Night Patrol Team was 83.7, up 1.3 points from that recorded in the June 2012 reading. This is the highest score recorded to date, and there appears to be a trend of rising CSI scores since 2007.

The Council Night Patrol Team: Trends on a Quarterly Basis The following chart shows the quarterly trend in the CSI score for the Council Night Patrol Team. The March Index is 84.8, down 3.3 from last quarter‟s exceptionally high result. The current result is on par with the rising trend line. There has been considerable variation in the CSI scores by quarter, but that may simply have reflected that other factors (like reported crime or positive news stories) are impacting respondent‟s perceptions regarding the performance of the Night Patrol Team.

77.2 76.876.1

74.9 75.5

77.578.6 79.0

82.483.7

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

2004 2005 2006 Jul 06 - Jun 07

Jul 07 - Jun 08

Jul 08 - Jun 09

Jul 09 - Jun 10

Jul 10 - Jun 11

Jul 11 - Jun 12

Apr 12 -Mar 13

CSI

Sco


CSI score

Trend

72.5

78.8

72.1

75.8

81.6

66.2

82.5

74.6

80.9

76.674.6

78.8 79.477.9 78.0

77.1

74.5

86.0

79.2

83.782.0 81.9 82.0

80.7

88.1

84.8

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Sep

t 0

6 Q

tr

Dec

06

Qtr

Mar

07

Qtr

Jun

07

Qtr

Sep

07

Qtr

Dec

07

Qtr

Mar

08

Qtr

Jun

08

Qtr

Sep

08

Qtr

Dec

08

Qtr

Jun

09

Qtr

Sep

09

Qtr

Dec

09

Qtr

Mar

10

Qtr

Jun

10

Qtr

Sep

10

Qtr

Dec

10

Qtr

Mar

11

Qtr

Jun

11

Qtr

Sep

11

Qtr

Dec

11

Qtr

Mar

12

Qtr

Jun

12

Qtr

Sep

12

Qtr

Dec

12

Qtr

Mar

13

Qtr

CSI

Sco

res


CSI score

Trend

March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013) Noise Pollution in Hamilton


4.12 Noise Pollution in Hamilton Respondents were asked „Using a 10 point scale where 0 = a big problem and 10 = not a problem at all can you tell me how much of a problem noise pollution has been in your neighbourhood over the past 12 months?‟

Three quarters of the respondents (72%) felt noise pollution had not been a problem in their neighbourhood over the past 12 months. A third of the respondents (33%) rated this with a score that reflected noise pollution was no problem at all (score of 10).

A ninth of the respondents (11%) felt noise pollution has been a problem in their neighbourhood over the past 12 months (scores 0 – 3). A sixth of the respondents (17%) rated this as neutral (a small problem) with scores that ranged from 4 to 6. The remaining two respondents (0.3%) did not answer this question. The Index for noise pollution was 75.1, up 2.0 points from the July 2011 – June 2012 reading.

Converting the 10 point scale back to the previous scale paints a slightly different picture.

Only 4% of the respondents thought that noise pollution was a big problem in their neighbourhood. A further 7% thought this was a problem, while 17% thought noise pollution was somewhat of a problem.

A quarter of the sample (24%) said noise pollution was not much of a problem, while 47% said this was not a problem at all.

There were fewer respondents who considered noise to be at least a problem this reading (11.0%) versus 12.4% for July 2011 – June 2012.

2.81.2

4.12.9

4.3

7.25.7

8.4

15.914.8

32.5

0

10

20

30

40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% o

f th

e re

spo

nd

ents

Noise Pollution Scale (0 = a big problem to 10 = not a problem at all)

Apr 12 - Mar 13

Jul 11 - Jun 12

Jul 10 - Jun 11

Noise Pollution in your Neighbourhood (Index)Apr 12 - Mar 13 = 75.1Jul 11 - Jun 12 = 73.1Jul 10 - Jun 11 = 74.0Jul 09 - Jun 10 = 72.9

10 = Not a problem at all

0 = A big problem

4.0

7.0

17.2

24.3

47.3

0.3

3.7

8.7

18.6

25.9

42.8

0.5

3.1

7.6

21.6

22.4

44.8

0.6

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

A big problem

A problem

Somewhat of a problem

Not much of a problem

Not a problem at all

Don't know% of respondents

Apr 12 - Mar 13

Jul 11 - Jun 12

Jul 10 - Jun 11

Graffiti March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013)


4.13 Graffiti

Respondents were asked „Using a 10 point scale where 0 = a big problem and 10 = not a problem at all, can you tell me how much of a problem graffiti has been in your neighbourhood over the past 12 months?‟

On a Moving Annual Total (MAT) basis (April 2012 – March 2013) two thirds of the respondents (65%) felt Graffiti had not been a problem in their neighbourhood over the past 12 months (scores 7 – 10). A third of the respondents (31%) rated this with a score of 10 that reflected Graffiti was no problem at all.

A seventh of the respondents (15%) felt Graffiti has been a problem in their neighbourhood over the past 12 months (scores 0 – 3). A fifth of the respondents (18%) rated this as neutral (a small problem) with scores that ranged from 4 to 6. The remaining 1.5% did not answer this question.

The index for Graffiti was 71.0 which implies, on average, that Graffiti was only a small problem in the past 12 months. By comparison, the Index was 69.0 for June 2012.

7.1

1.9 1.6

4.5 4.4

9.6

4.1

7.6

13.113.9

30.7

0

10

20

30

40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% o

f th

e re

spo

nd

ents

Graffiti Scale (0 = a big problem to 10 = not a problem at all)

Apr 12 - Mar 13

Jul 11 - Jun 12

Jul 10 - Jun 11

Graffiti in your Neighbourhood (Index)


10 = Not a problem at all

0 = A big problem

March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013) Graffiti


Graffiti – Satisfaction with Council’s clean-up programme Respondents were then asked „The Council operates programmes to clean up graffiti once it has been reported. Using the same scale where 0 is very dissatisfied to 10 being very satisfied, how satisfied are you with the Council’s programme to clean up graffiti in the past year?‟

A seventh of the respondents (14%) did not answer this question, presumably because they were not aware of the Council’s programme to clean up graffiti.

Three quarters of the subgroup (75%) were satisfied with Council’s programme to clean up graffiti (scores 7 – 10). Over a third of the respondents (42%) rated this with a score of 9 or 10 (exceeded expectations).

Only a few respondents (1.4%) were dissatisfied with Council’s programme to clean up graffiti (scores 0 – 3) and 9% rated this as neutral (scores 4 – 6).

The CSI score for Council’s programme to clean up graffiti was 83.0, which again rates as an excellent performance. By comparison, the Index was 79.9 for June 2012.

0.3 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.6

4.73.8

8.4

25.3

16.5

25.0

14.3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Don't know

% o

f th

e re

spo

nd

ents


Apr 12 - Mar 13

Jul 11 - Jun 12

Jul 10 - Jun 11

Council’s programme to clean up graffiti in the past year

CSI ScoresApr 12 - Mar 13 = 83.0Jul 11 - Jun 12 = 79.9Jul 10 - Jun 11= 78.4Jul 09 - Jun 10 = 78.2

10 = Very Satisfied


Graffiti March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013)


Council’s Graffiti clean-up: Trends on an Annual Basis The CSI score for Council’s Graffiti clean-up was 83.0, up 3.1 points from the 79.9 recorded in the June 2012 reading. This is the highest score recorded to date and is on par with the rising trend line of recent years.

Council’s Graffiti clean-up: Trends on a Quarterly Basis The following chart shows the quarterly trend in the CSI score for Council’s Graffiti clean-up. The March 2013 quarter Index of 85.8 is up 4.7 points from last quarter. This is the highest CSI score recorded to date and is well above the rising quarterly trend line.

61.8

71.5 72.5

78.2 78.479.9

83.0

50

60

70

80

90

100

Jul 06 - Jun 07 Jul 07 - Jun 08 Jul 08 - Jun 09 Jul 09 - Jun 10 Jul 10 - Jun 11 Jul 11 - Jun 12 Apr 12 - Mar 13

CSI

Sco


CSI score

Trend

67.6

73.0

70.471.3

74.773.6

81.5 81.2

76.7

74.6

78.9 79.178.4

77.2

74.0

80.0

82.2 82.5 82.5

81.1

85.8

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

Mar

08

Qtr

Jun

08

Qtr

Sep

08

Qtr

Dec

08

Qtr

Mar

09

Qtr

Jun

09

Qtr

Sep

09

Qtr

Dec

09

Qtr

Mar

10

Qtr

Jun

10

Qtr

Sep

10

Qtr

Dec

10

Qtr

Mar

11

Qtr

Jun

11

Qtr

Sep

11

Qtr

Dec

11

Qtr

Mar

12

Qtr

Jun

12

Qtr

Sep

12

Qtr

Dec

12

Qtr

Mar

13

Qtr

CSI

Sco

res


CSI score

Trend

Hamilton's Central Business District at night time March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013)


4.14 Hamilton’s Central Business District at night time

Frequency of visiting Hamilton’s Central Business District at night time Almost two thirds of the sample (63%) had visited Hamilton‟s Central Business District (down town) at night time in the past 12 months.

A tenth of the sample (10%) visited Hamilton‟s Central Business District (down town) at night time on a weekly basis, while 24% visited on a monthly basis. A quarter of the sample, (28%) visited Hamilton‟s Central Business District at night time once a year. Over a third of the sample (37%) had not visited Hamilton‟s Central Business District at night time in the past 12 months.

Satisfaction with Hamilton’s Central Business District at night time Respondents who had visited Hamilton‟s Central Business District at night time in the last 12 months (n = 197) were asked to rate their satisfaction with the CBD at night time, using a scale where 0 is very dissatisfied to 10 being very satisfied.

Half of the respondents (49%) were satisfied with Hamilton’s Central Business District at night time (scores of 7 – 10). The mode was a score of 8 (20%) and 10% rated Hamilton‟s Central Business District with a score of 9 or 10 (exceeded expectations). Over a third of the sample (40%) rated this as neutral (scores 4 – 6) and only a few respondents (8%) were actually dissatisfied (scores 0 – 3). A few respondents (4%) did not answer this question.

The CSI score for Hamilton’s Central Business District at night time was 63.3, down 1.7 points from the June 2012 result. This again rates as needing improvement based on the Corporate Standards defined by HCC for a Customer Choice service.

-37.2

-39.3

-31.6

-33.0

-32.3

-25.6

10.2

10.3

14.6

12.3

10.7

21.6

23.5

24.3

25.0

21.7

25.5

26.2

27.6

25.8

27.5

28.3

28.4

19.1

62.5

60.4

67.8

65.2

66.1

72.2

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Apr 12 - Mar 13

Jul 11 - Jun 12

Jul 10 - Jun 11

Jul 09 - Jun 10

Jul 08 - Jun 09

Jul 07 - Jun 08

% of the sample

Not in the past 12 months DailyWeekly MonthlyYearly Don't knowUsed at all

0.2

2.53.9

1.2

4.9

18.116.8

18.9 19.5

6.5

3.8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% o

f th

e re

spo

nd

ents


Apr 12 - Mar 13

Jul 11 - Jun 12

Jul 10 - Jun 11Hamilton's CBD at night time

CSI ScoresApr 12 - Mar 13 = 63.3Jul 11 - Jun 12 = 65.0Jul 10 - Jun 11 = 67.2Jul 09 - Jun 10 = 66.9

10 = Very Satisfied


Garden Place March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013)


4.15 Garden Place in Central Hamilton

Frequency of visiting Garden Place in Central Hamilton Respondents were asked how often they had visited Garden Place in Central Hamilton in the past 12 months. Three quarters of the respondents (75%) had visited Garden Place in the past 12 months. Only a few respondents visited Garden Place on a daily basis (3%) while 15% visited weekly and 22% on a monthly basis. A third of the sample (35%) visited Garden Place once a year.

A quarter of the sample (25%) had not visited Garden Place in the past 12 months.

Satisfaction with Garden Place in Central Hamilton Respondents who had visited Garden Place in Central Hamilton in the last 12 months (n = 249) were asked to rate their satisfaction using a scale where 0 is very dissatisfied to 10 being very satisfied.

Over half of the respondents (55%) were satisfied with their visit to Garden Place (scores of 7 – 10). The mode was a score of 6 (18%) while 23% rated Garden Place with a score of 9 or 10 (exceeded expectations). A third of the subgroup (37%) were neutral (scores 4 – 6) and 14 respondents (5%) were actually dissatisfied (scores 0 – 3).

The CSI score for Garden Place was 68.3, up 2.9 points from the June 2012 result. This now rates as fair but needing improvement based on the Corporate Standards defined by HCC for a Customer Choice service.

-25.1

-22.7

-23.5

-22.5

-21.8

-16.4

14.7

13.3

15.3

14.6

15.0

19.8

22.3

24.9

27.8

28.9

28.2

25.6

34.7

35.6

29.6

28.5

31.4

29.5

74.9

77.2

75.5

77.2

77.5

82.7

-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Apr 12 - Mar 13

Jul 11 - Jun 12

Jul 10 - Jun 11

Jul 09 - Jun 10

Jul 08 - Jun 09

Jul 07 - Jun 08

% of the sample


Weekly Monthly

Yearly Don't know

Used at all

0.61.8

0.62.2

4.6

14.0

18.1

16.4 16.4

14.4

8.2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% o

f th

e re

spo

nd

ents


Apr 12 - Mar 13

Jul 11 - Jun 12

Jul 10 - Jun 11

Garden Place in Central Hamilton CSI ScoresApr 12 - Mar 13 = 68.3Jul 11 - Jun 12 = 65.4Jul 10 - Jun 11 = 63.8Jul 09 - Jun 10 = 71.1

10 = Very Satisfied


March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013) Special Interest Topics


5.0 Special Interest Topics Each quarter a set of topical questions is normally included with the quarterly monitor. These questions change in each survey to address current / topical issues. For the March 2013 quarter (n = 175) the topical questions included respondents‟ attitudes as to whether Hamilton City Council should continue or stop adding fluoride to Hamilton‟s public water supply.

5.1 Fluoride for Hamilton‟s water supply The respondents for the March quarter (n = 175) were read the following statement „As a result of public feedback on Hamilton‟s 10 year plan, the Hamilton City Council is considering whether it should continue or stop adding fluoride to Hamilton‟s public water supply”. They were then asked “What decision would you like Council to make with regard to fluoridation of the Hamilton water supply?‟

Half of the respondents, (50.2%) said they would like Council to CONTINUE adding fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply. Conversely, a third of the respondents (31%) would like Council to STOP adding fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply. A sixth of the respondents (18%) did not know if they wanted Council to continue or stop adding fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply. One respondent (0.7%) did not answer this question.

I would like Council to STOP adding

fluoride to Hamilton’s water

supply-31.2%

I would like Council to CONTINUE adding

fluoride to Hamilton’s water

supply50.2%

Don’t know17.9%

No answer0.7%

Special Interest Topics March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013)


Respondents were asked „What decision would you like Council to make with regard to fluoridation of the Hamilton water supply?‟

Half of the respondents, (50.2%) said they would like Council to continue adding fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply. Conversely, a third of the respondents (31%) would like Council to stop adding fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply. A sixth of the respondents (18%) did not know if they wanted Council to continue or stop adding fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply.

Please note there are small numbers of respondents in many of the subgroups so care is recommended in the interpretation.

There are some differences in the proportion of the demographic subgroups that wanted Council to continue or stop adding fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply.

There is some variation in the proportion that said they would like Council to continue adding fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply based on the Ward the respondent is from. This varies from 39% for Chartwell / Fairfield up to 93% for Beerescourt / Pukete.

Those in the 18 – 25 age bracket are the most likely to want Council to stop adding fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply (52%) versus 25% - 35% for those in the other age brackets.

Those of Maori descent (55%) are the most likely to want Council to stop adding fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply versus 23% - 39% for those from the other ethnic backgrounds.

It seems the higher the income, the greater the support for Council to continue adding fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply. This ranges from 35% for those with a household income under $35,000 p.a. to 69% for those with a household income over $70,000 p.a.

Those who own their own home were more likely to want Council to continue adding fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply (58%) versus 39% for those who rent.

-31.2

-7.5

-37.7

-35.9

-30.3

-30.2

-31.6

-30.9

-52.0

-25.0

-32.0

-35.0

-24.5

-22.7

-54.7

-39.4

-23.6

-30.1

-44.1

-44.5

-33.2

-15.2

-26.2

-38.4

-20.6

-32.9

-26.6

-39.5

50.2

92.5

39.0

46.9

44.0

57.6

53.6

47.1

48.0

46.7

56.4

50.1

56.5

42.9

33.2

46.2

57.3

42.4

43.5

35.3

46.3

69.3

57.6

39.3

52.3

49.8

59.5

33.2

17.9

22.0

15.6

25.7

12.3

14.1

21.3

28.4

10.3

12.3

18.3

31.0

12.0

14.3

18.3

27.5

11.3

20.1

19.4

15.5

15.6

21.3

24.6

16.8

13.4

26.1

-100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100

Mar 13 Qtr (n = 175)

Beerescourt/Pukete (n = 23)

Chartwell/Fairfield (n = 50)

Ham East/Hillcrest (n = 36)

Dinsdale/Nawton (n = 42)

Melville/Hamilton Lake (n = 24)

Men (n = 72)

Women (n = 103)

Under 25 years (n = 8)

26 - 45 years (n = 50)

46 - 64 years (n = 74)

65+ years (n = 40)

European descent (n = 113)

New Zealander (n = 21)

Maori descent (n = 17)

Other (n = 24)

Work full time (n = 79)

Part time (n = 31)

Not working (n = 65)

Less than $30,000 (n = 37)

$30,000 to $70,000 (n = 58)

More than $70,000 (n = 49)

Own home (n = 117)

Renting (n = 57)

Own business (n = 24)

Not Own business (n = 151)

Pay rates (n = 128)

Don't pay rates (n = 47)

% of the sample

Council to STOP adding fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply

Council to CONTINUE adding fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply

Don‟t know

No answer



Respondents were asked „Hamilton City Council currently fluoridate Hamilton‟s water supply but they are considering whether they should continue to do this or stop. We are now interested in understanding how strongly you feel about your answer to the previous question. Using the scale where 0 = Strongly Disagree and 10 is Strongly Agree can you please tell me how strongly you feel that Council should CONTINUE to add fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply?‟

Half (52%) of the March 2013 quarter sample (n = 175) agreed with the statement that Council should continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's water supply (scores of 7 – 10). A quarter of the sample (29%) strongly agreed with this statement (Score of 10). The mode was a score of 10 (strongly agree).

A sixth of the sample (16%) were neutral (scores 4 – 6) and a sixth of the March 2013 sample (17%) disagreed that Council should continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's water supply (scores 0 – 3). A sixth of the respondents (15%) did not answer this question.

The average was 6.56 giving an Agreement Index of 65.6.

13.7

2.1

0.6 0.4 0.7

12.5

2.2

9.0

10.6

4.2

28.7

15.3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No answer

% o

f re

spondents

Mar 13 Qtr (n = 175)

0 = Strongly Disagree

10 = Strongly Agree

How strongly do you agree or disagree with the statement 'Council should

continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's water supply'

Index = 65.6

Ave

rage

= 6

.56



Should Council continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's water supply by demographics There are a number of variables which appear to have an impact on how strongly the respondents agree or disagree with the statement „Council should continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's water supply‟. The chart opposite compares these variables.


The variables that appear to have had the greatest impact were:

Those from Beerescourt / Pukete (Index 81.7) appear the most likely to agree with the statement „Council should continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's water supply‟ versus Indexes from 50.6 to 72.6 for those from the other areas of Hamilton.

Men (Index 70.1) appear more likely to agree versus an Index of 61.2 for women

Those aged 46 - 64 (Index 60.8) appear the least likely to agree versus an Index of 69.0 for those aged 26 – 45 or an Index of 68.8 for those aged over 65.

Those not working in paid employment (Index 56.8) appear less likely to agree with the statement „Council should continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's water supply‟.

Respondents of Maori descent (Index 42.9) appear the least likely to agree with the statement „Council should continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's water supply‟.

Those with a household income over $70,000 (Index 80.8) appear the most likely to agree with the statement „Council should continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's water supply‟ versus Indexes from 54.5 to 60.4 for those from the other household income brackets.

Those in their own home (Index 69.3) appear more likely to agree versus an Index of 59.5 for those who are renting.

Those who own their own business (Index 80.0) appear more likely to agree versus an Index of 63.5 for those who do not own their own business.

Those who pay rates (Index 68.4) appear more likely to agree versus an Index of 59.1 for those who do not pay rates.

65.6

81.7

50.6

72.0

64.6

72.6

70.1

61.2

64.9

69.0

60.8

68.8

68.2

56.6

42.9

76.1

69.6

69.5

56.8

54.5

60.4

80.8

69.3

59.5

80.0

63.5

68.4

59.1

175

23

50

36

42

24

72

103

8

50

74

40

113

21

17

24

79

31

65

37

58

49

117

57

24

151

128

47

0 20 40 60 80 100

Mar 13 Qtr

Beerescourt/Pukete

Chartwell/Fairfield

Ham East/Hillcrest

Dinsdale/Nawton

Melville/Hamilton Lake

Men

Women

Under 25 years

26 - 45 years

46 - 64 years

65+ years

European descent

New Zealander

Maori descent

Other

Work full time

Part time

Not working

Less than $30,000

$30,000 to $70,000

More than $70,000

Own home

Renting

Own business

Not Own business

Pay rates

Don't pay rates

Index # of respondents



The following chart shows the level of agreement with the statement „Council should continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's water supply‟ across the 11 point scale from 0 being strongly disagree (red) to 10 being strongly agree (green).

-14

-4

-22

-15

-12

-6

-13

-14

-11

-11

-18

-15

-12

-19

-32

-6

-10

-11

-21

-18

-16

-4

-11

-17

-3

-15

-12

-16

9

24

2

14

9

5

14

5

15

8

10

8

7

6

21

6

7

14

18

10

6

10

8

6

10

8

11

11

9

17

6

9

10

10

11

11

8

13

15

8

12

12

15

11

4

14

7

14

11

11

10

13

10

12

9

4

8

3

6

2

4

5

4

4

7

5

4

5

7

3

5

11

3

5

4

4

4

4

29

48

15

38

25

36

34

24

26

31

22

38

33

18

14

31

31

35

21

15

21

43

34

22

38

27

34

19

15

19

17

19

10

11

19

23

12

10

15

31

9

14

12

26

14

20

17

11

12

20

22

14

9

27

65.6

81.7

50.6

72.0

64.6

72.6

70.1

61.2

64.9

69.0

60.8

68.8

68.2

56.6

42.9

76.1

69.6

69.5

56.8

54.5

60.4

80.8

69.3

59.5

80.0

63.5

68.4

59.1

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Mar 13 Qtr

Beerescourt/Pukete

Chartwell/Fairfield

Ham East/Hillcrest

Dinsdale/Nawton


Men

Women

Under 25 years

26 - 45 years

46 - 64 years

65+ years

European descent

New Zealander

Maori descent

Other

Work full time

Part time

Not working

Less than $30,000

$30,000 to $70,000

More than $70,000

Own home

Renting

Own business

Not Own business

Pay rates

Don't pay rates

% of the sample

0 = Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 4 3 8 9 10 = Strongly Agree No answer Index

Red = DisagreeGreen = Agree



Should Council continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's water supply by future actions Respondents were asked „Hamilton City Council currently fluoridate Hamilton‟s water supply but they are considering whether they should continue to do this or stop. We are now interested in understanding how strongly you feel about your answer to the previous question. Using the scale where 0 = Strongly Disagree and 10 is Strongly Agree can you please tell me how strongly you feel?‟

There are some interesting, but expected differences in the level of agreement with the statement “that Council should CONTINUE to add fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply” based on the respondents answers to the question “What decision would you like Council to make with regard to fluoridation of the Hamilton water supply?‟

A sixth of the respondents (18%) did not know if they wanted Council to continue or stop adding fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply. The majority of these respondents (79%) did not answer this second question while the other 7 respondents answer this question with a score of 5 (neutral).

Those who said they would like Council to continue adding fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply (n = 89) are much more likely to agree with the statement that Council should continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's water supply. The vast majority of this subgroup (86%) agreed with the statement that Council should continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's water supply (scores of 7 – 10). Half of this subgroup (47%) strongly agreed with this statement (Score of 10). A seventh of the subgroup (14%) were neutral (scores 4 – 6) and none of the subgroup (0%) disagreed with this statement. The Agreement Index for those who said they would like Council to continue adding fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply was 85.1.

Conversely, the respondents who would like Council to stop adding fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply (n = 56) are much more likely to disagree with the statement that Council should continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's water supply. However, a quarter of this unweighted subgroup (25%) agreed with the statement that Council should continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's water supply (scores of 7 – 10). It is probable that these respondents were focusing on the first part of the question when responding e.g. „We are now interested in understanding how strongly you feel about your answer to the previous question‟ rather than giving a rating for the actual question „Using the scale where 0 = Strongly Disagree and 10 is Strongly Agree can you please tell me how strongly you feel that Council should CONTINUE to add fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply‟.

A sixth of this subgroup (17%) strongly agreed with this statement (Score of 10). An eighth of the subgroup (13%) were neutral (scores 4 – 6) but over half of the subgroup (54%) disagreed with this statement. The Agreement Index for those who said they would like Council to stop adding fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply was 35.4.

10.0

4.4

12.0

18.5

8.4

46.8

43.9

6.7

2.0 1.3 2.3

10.89.4

4.2

16.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% o

f re

spo

nd

en

ts

I would like Council to CONTINUE adding fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply (n = 89)

I would like Council to STOP adding fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply (n = 56)


10 = Strongly AgreeHow strongly do you agree or disagree

with the statement 'Council should continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's

water supply'

Council to STOP adding fluoride to Hamilton’s water supply: Index = 35.4

Council to CONTINUE adding fluoride to Hamilton’s water supply: Index = 85.1



Should Council continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's water supply – Adjusted result

The following charts are adjusted to account for an anomaly in the results

The previous chart highlighted an anomaly with this question. As expected the respondents who would like Council to stop adding fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply (n = 56) are much more likely to disagree with the statement that Council should continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's water supply. However, a quarter of this unweighted subgroup (25%) agreed with the statement that Council should continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's water supply (scores of 7 – 10). This is a total contradiction of the previous question.

It is probable that these respondents were focusing on the first part of the question when responding e.g. „We are now interested in understanding how strongly you feel about your answer to the previous question ‟ rather than giving a rating for the actual question „Using the scale where 0 = Strongly Disagree and 10 is Strongly Agree can you please tell me how strongly you feel that Council should CONTINUE to add fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply‟.

If this probable anomaly is corrected, then the 10 respondents who rated this as 10 probably should have been recorded as strongly disagree (score of 0). In a similar way, the one respondent who rated this at 8 should have been recorded as a 2 (disagree) and the 3 respondents who rated this at 7 should have been recorded as a 3 (disagree). The following chart is based on this adjustment.

Those who said they would like Council to continue adding fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply (n = 89) are much more likely to agree with the statement that Council should continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's water supply. The vast majority of this subgroup (86%) agreed with the statement that Council should continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's water supply (scores of 7 – 10). Half of this subgroup (47%) strongly agreed with this statement (Score of 10). A seventh of the subgroup (14%) were neutral (scores 4 – 6) and none of the subgroup (0%) disagreed with this statement. The Agreement Index for those who said they would like Council to continue adding fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply was 85.1.

Those who said they would like Council to continue adding fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply (n = 89) are much more likely to agree with the statement that Council should continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's water supply. The vast majority of this subgroup (86%) agreed with the statement that Council should continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's water supply (scores of 7 – 10). The Agreement Index for those who said they would like Council to continue adding fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply was 85.1.

Those who said they would like Council to stop adding fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply (n = 56) are much more likely to disagree with the statement that Council should continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's water supply. The vast majority of this subgroup (84%) disagreed with the statement that Council should continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's water supply (scores of 0 – 3). The Agreement Index for those who said they would like Council to stop adding fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply was 11.2.

10.0

4.4

12.0

18.5

8.4

46.8

60.6

6.7 6.2

10.7

2.3

10.8

0

20

40

60

80

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% o

f re

spondents

I would like Council to CONTINUE adding fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply (n = 89)

I would like Council to STOP adding fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply (n = 56)


10 = Strongly Agree

How strongly do you agree or disagree with the statement 'Council should

continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's water supply'

Council to STOP adding fluoride to Hamilton’s water supply: Index = 11.2

Council to CONTINUE adding fluoride to Hamilton’s water supply: Index = 85.1



Should Council continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's water supply – Adjusted result

The following chart is adjusted to account for the anomaly in the results

Re-running the original chart based on the correction for the above anomaly gives a slightly different result.

Respondents were asked „Hamilton City Council currently fluoridate Hamilton‟s water supply but they are considering whether they should continue to do this or stop. We are now interested in understanding how strongly you feel about your answer to the previous question. Using the scale where 0 = Strongly Disagree and 10 is Strongly Agree can you please tell me how strongly you feel that Council should CONTINUE to add fluoride to Hamilton‟s water supply?‟

When the results are corrected to account for the above anomaly, less than half (43%) of the March 2013 quarter sample (n = 175) agreed with the statement that Council should continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's water supply (scores of 7 – 10). A quarter of the sample (24%) strongly agreed with this statement (Score of 10). The mode was a score of 10 (strongly agree).

A sixth of the sample (16%) were neutral (scores 4 – 6) and a quarter of the March 2013 sample (26%) disagreed that Council should continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's water supply (scores 0 – 3) including 19% that strongly disagreed (Score = 0). The remaining sixth of the respondents (15%) did not answer this question.

The adjusted Agreement Index is 57.1.

18.9

2.1 1.9

3.3

0.7

12.5

2.2

6.0

9.3

4.2

23.5

15.3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No answer

% o

f re

spondents

Mar 13 Qtr (n = 175)


10 = Strongly Agree

ADJUSTED RESULTSHow strongly do you agree or disagree

with the statement 'Council should continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's

water supply'

Index = 57.1

Ave

rage

= 5

.71



The chart is adjusted to account for an anomaly in the results

Should Council continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's water supply by demographics There are a number of variables which appear to have an impact on how strongly the respondents agree or disagree with the statement „Council should continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's water supply‟. The chart opposite compares these variables.


The variables that appear to have had the greatest impact were:

Those from Beerescourt / Pukete (Index 81.7) appear the most likely to agree with the statement „Council should continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's water supply‟ versus Indexes from 42.6 to 63.3 for those from the other areas of Hamilton.

Men (Index 59.4) appear more likely to agree versus an Index of 54.9 for women

Age has little impact on the level of agreement.

Respondents of Maori descent (Index 42.9) appear the least likely to agree with the statement „Council should continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's water supply‟.

Those not working in paid employment (Index 48.0) appear less likely to agree with the statement „Council should continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's water supply‟.

Those with a household income over $70,000 (Index 71.2) appear the most likely to agree with the statement „Council should continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's water supply‟ versus Indexes from 48.6 to 51.5 for those from the other household income brackets.

Those in their own home (Index 61.5) appear more likely to agree versus an Index of 49.9 for those who are renting.

Those who own their own business (Index 66.0) appear more likely to agree versus an Index of 55.8 for those who do not own their own business.

Those who pay rates (Index 62.6) appear more likely to agree versus an Index of 44.5 for those who do not pay rates.

57.1

81.7

42.6

55.7

58.5

63.3

59.4

54.9

58.9

57.9

56.3

56.5

60.8

51.6

42.9

58.2

62.5

57.6

48.0

48.6

51.5

71.2

61.5

49.9

66.0

55.8

62.6

44.5

175

23

50

36

42

24

72

103

8

50

74

40

113

21

17

24

79

31

65

37

58

49

117

57

24

151

128

47

0 20 40 60 80 100

Mar 13 Qtr

Beerescourt/Pukete

Chartwell/Fairfield

Ham East/Hillcrest

Dinsdale/Nawton


Men

Women

Under 25 years

26 - 45 years

46 - 64 years

65+ years

European descent

New Zealander

Maori descent

Other

Work full time

Part time

Not working

Less than $30,000

$30,000 to $70,000

More than $70,000

Own home

Renting

Own business

Not Own business

Pay rates

Don't pay rates

Index # of respondents



The chart is adjusted to account for an anomaly in the results

The following chart shows the level of agreement with the statement „Council should continue to add fluoride to Hamilton's water supply‟ across the 11 point scale from 0 being strongly disagree (red) to 10 being strongly agree (green).

-19

-4

-28

-25

-15

-8

-19

-19

-11

-16

-22

-25

-18

-23

-32

-13

-14

-20

-27

-19

-20

-13

-17

-22

-8

-21

-17

-22

6

24

2

6

4

5

8

5

5

10

5

6

6

9

4

7

9

11

6

6

7

4

6

6

7

4

9

9

17

6

9

7

11

11

5

13

15

8

12

12

9

8

4

14

7

10

11

11

7

4

10

12

5

4

8

3

6

2

4

5

4

4

7

5

4

5

7

3

5

11

3

5

4

4

4

4

24

48

8

27

22

34

28

19

26

25

18

28

27

14

14

24

28

26

15

13

17

34

29

17

33

22

29

14

15

19

17

19

10

11

19

23

12

10

15

31

9

14

12

26

14

20

17

11

12

20

22

14

9

27

57.1

81.7

42.6

55.7

58.5

63.3

59.4

54.9

58.9

57.9

56.3

56.5

60.8

51.6

42.9

58.2

62.5

57.6

48.0

48.6

51.5

71.2

61.5

49.9

66.0

55.8

62.6

44.5

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Mar 13 Qtr

Beerescourt/Pukete

Chartwell/Fairfield

Ham East/Hillcrest

Dinsdale/Nawton


Men

Women

Under 25 years

26 - 45 years

46 - 64 years

65+ years

European descent

New Zealander

Maori descent

Other

Work full time

Part time

Not working

Less than $30,000

$30,000 to $70,000

More than $70,000

Own home

Renting

Own business

Not Own business

Pay rates

Don't pay rates

% of the sample

0 = Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 4 3 8 9 10 = Strongly Agree No answer Index

Red = Disagree Green = Agree

March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013) Background


6.0 Background

Objectives Hamilton City Council has recognised the value of community consultation for some time and each year since 1984 has undertaken a survey of the city‟s residents. Since July 2006 the survey has been undertaken on a rolling quarterly basis. This survey provides Council with information on the utilisation of Council provided facilities and services, the degree of satisfaction with these services, overall attitudes and community needs. A number of measures from the Residents Survey have been used in all of Council‟s annual plans and long term plans since 1990. The Residents Survey also provides background information for a number of Council studies and decisions.

The main objectives of this survey are to:

1. Assess how well Council is performing across a range of policy and service delivery areas. Where prior measurement had taken place, comparisons are made to ascertain if change has occurred as a result of Council initiatives and to identify new emerging problem areas.

2. Provide useful data for building into staff‟s planning of Council‟s services to be delivered in subsequent financial years.

3. Indicate low satisfaction service delivery areas where further action / follow up work is required. Once again, where appropriate, these measures are compared against previous results to identify trends. By comparing with previous results, the magnitude of change gives more meaningful feedback to Council.

4. Provide feedback on residents‟ dealings with Elected Members and Council Staff.

Timing Conventions

The objective was to complete the fourth quarterly survey in a similar timeframe to when the annual survey would have taken place. The 2012 report is based on the September 2011, December 2011, March 2012 and June 2012 quarters. The quarterly results are reported in summary each quarter with a full report being produced based after June each year.

It is important to note that the historical results are not based on a calendar year but reflect the financial years used by Council e.g. the 2011 results refer to the July 2010 / June 2011 financial year and the 2012 results refer to the July 2011 / June 2012 financial year. Historically, the survey timing varied from year to year but generally was undertaken between May and July.

The timing for the quarterly interviewing is shown in the table below.

Quarter Survey Timing

1. July – September Late August / Early September

2. October – December Late November / Early December

3. January – March Late February / Early March

4. April – June Late May / Early June

The telephone interviewing was conducted by DigiPoll Ltd from Hamilton using their sophisticated CATI (computer aided telephone interviewing) laboratory.

Background March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013)


Quarterly

Interviews

175 respondents per quarter – all are asked „core‟ questions

All respondents are asked the „core‟ questions each quarter (175 per quarter or 700 per year).

Half of the respondents are asked to rate usage and satisfaction of one set of services and facilities while the other half will rate the second set of facilities and services. Usage of all facilities and services will be rated by 87 respondents per quarter which will equate to 350 per year).

Note only users are asked to rate satisfaction so the number of respondents who rate satisfaction is dependent on the proportion who actually used each service or facility.

The survey will be too long if we ask all users who are less than satisfied for verbatim comments every quarter. To shorten the survey we only ask the less than satisfied question for half the services and facilities from each stream in quarter‟s one and three and the other half in quarter‟s two and four.

The services and facilities would oscillate between the two sets within each stream each quarter to ensure that there is some feedback for each service and facility each year.

Half of the facilities and services in this stream asked „why‟ if the score is less than 8 in Q1 and Q3.

The other half the facilities and services in this stream asked „why‟ if the score is less than 8 in Q2 and Q4.

Half of the facilities and services in this stream asked „why‟ if the score is less than 8 in Q1 and Q3.

The other half the facilities and services in this stream asked „why‟ if the score is less than 8 in Q2 and Q4.

Each quarter all services and facilities split into 2 streams

87 respondents asked questions about half of the facilities and services (i.e. all asked usage but only users asked satisfaction)

88 respondents asked questions about other half of the facilities and services (i.e. all asked usage but only users asked satisfaction)

This is the twenty sixth quarterly survey completed to date. Each quarter interim report includes a summary of the individual quarters findings as well as a rolling four quarter analysis (12 months). The first rolling 12 months was completed in June 2007. As with the annual survey, at the end of the 12 months (June quarter) an annual report for the financial year completed is provided to allow comparisons against previous years of the full Annual Residents Survey.



Explanation of the Measurement Process The measurement scale changed in 2003 to give respondents greater flexibility in rating the service factors and facilities. The scale was designed to ensure that we are able to compare the level of satisfaction with the scores that have been given historically using a 5 point scale. The 11 point scale allows Council to do this while also giving the respondent opportunities to define nuances in satisfaction levels.

Customer Satisfaction Index The use of the Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI score)

4 to compare results is not affected by this change. As has

been the practise in the previous surveys, the use of a CSI score allows Council to compare results across the different demographic subgroups of interest or to compare results from one year to the next.

Satisfaction ratings were previously used to convert each respondent‟s answer across the five-point satisfaction scale to an Index out of 100 where extremely good = 100, good = 75, neither good nor poor = 50, poor = 25 and extremely poor = 0. Therefore the maximum score obtainable is 100 points; while the worst possible is zero and any score above 50 is positive.

The change to the 11 point scale makes it easier to calculate a CSI score. For the purposes of calculating a Satisfaction Index, the results of such questions are presented as a weighted average (a score out of 100) with the following weights applied.

Old Scale CSI score CSI score New Scale

Extremely Good 100 100 Very Satisfied 10

90 9

Good 75 80 8

70 7

Neither Good nor Poor 50

60 6

50 Neutral 5

40 4

Poor 25 30 3

20 2

Extremely Poor 0 10 1

0 Very Dissatisfied 0

The CSI score is comparable to that used in previous surveys as effectively, this 11 point scale covers the same range but allows finer differentiation.

4 The Customer Satisfaction Index converts each respondents answer across the satisfaction scale to an index out of 100. The index is 10 times

the average individual score based on the 11 point satisfaction scale (0 = very dissatisfied to 10 = very satisfied)



In the commercial arena, a benchmark CSI score of 85 reflects truly excellent customer service. Up until 2003, Hamilton City Council used a CSI score of 75 to reflect truly excellent customer satisfaction in the local government arena. However, this interpretation had some shortfalls as it is not feasible to use a single number to represent excellent customer satisfaction.

During 2003, the Management of Hamilton City Council developed a framework to interpret the CSI scores for the various facilities and services measured within this and other customer satisfaction projects.

The Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI scores)5 , (a weighted score across the satisfaction scale) is used to reflect

respondent satisfaction with the various facilities and services provided by Council.

CUSTOMER CHOICE CSI SCORES NO CUSTOMER CHOICE CSI SCORES

84 or higher Exceptional performance 79 or higher

82 - 83 Excellent performance 77 – 78

78 – 81 Very good performance 73 – 76

73 – 77 Good performance, but with potential for improvement

68 – 72

67 – 72 Fair: Needs improvement 62 – 67

66 or lower Needs significant improvement 61 or lower

This framework covers two streams of Council provided services, those with Customer Choice and those where there is No Customer Choice. Each of these streams has a different CSI score interpretation. The Customer Choice services and facilities would normally expect to receive higher CSI scores as dissatisfied customers take their business elsewhere. For No Choice services, the customer has no option but to remain with the Council provided service and therefore dissatisfied customers remain, frequently resulting in a lower CSI score e.g. they cannot change suppliers if they are dissatisfied and therefore more dissatisfied “customers” remain as users.

Customer Choice services / facilities are discretionary services that the residents may choose to use. Most non regulatory services are competing against alternative suppliers e.g. a customer‟s entertainment dollars may be spent at the zoo, local cinema or some other commercial venture.

Customer Choice Facilities and Services ArtsPost Hamilton City Council Website Porritt Stadium

Garden Place (Central) Library Hamilton City Leisure Centre (YMCA) Refuse Transfer Station

City News Hamilton Gardens Seddon Park

City Walkways Hamilton Lake Sports Areas

Clarence Street Theatre Hamilton Organic Centre The Hamilton City bus service

Claudelands Events Centre Hamilton Transport Centre The Meteor

Community Libraries Hamilton Zoo Visitor Information Centre

Council Off-street car parking on fringe of CBD

Hamilton‟s Central Business District at night time

Waikato Museum

Founders Theatre Multi-level car park in Knox Street Waikato Stadium

Gallagher Aquatic Centre Neighbourhood Park Waterworld

Garden Place Playground equipment

5 The Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) converts each respondents answer across the satisfaction scale to a score out of 100. The CSI score is 10

times the average individual score based on the 11 point satisfaction scale (0 = very dissatisfied to 10 = very satisfied)



No Customer Choice services / facilities are those where the respondents do not have a choice of supply. With these services / facilities, a person who is dissatisfied with the Council is forced to remain as a customer. Dissatisfied customers rate satisfaction lower and this results in lower CSI scores. Therefore, the benchmark used for regulatory services is lower than that used in the commercial arena. The following services are the No Customer Choice services / facilities:

No Customer Choice Facilities and Services

Central City Car parking in general Getting around in non peak traffic Pedestrian Safety

City Beautification Getting around in peak traffic times Process used for Council decision making

City‟s Wastewater System Hamilton as a place to live Provision of information

City‟s Stormwater System Hamilton Park Cemetery Public Toilets

Clarity of the Water Handling of noise complaint Street lighting in general

Continuity of Water Supply Household Refuse Collection Street lighting in your area

Council‟s Dog Control Service Involvement in decision making Streets in general

Council‟s programme to clean up Graffiti

Kerbside Recyclable Collection Streets where you live

Council‟s Staff Locations of pedestrian crossings Taste and Odour of the water supplied

Cycling facilities Outcome of noise complaint The Council night patrol team

Elected Members Overall Performance of Council The outcome of submissions etc

Footpaths in general Parks and Gardens in the City The pressure of the water supply

Footpaths in your area Pedestrian Facilities Traffic Management

Methodology A total of 701 respondents from Hamilton City were interviewed for the four quarterly results for the period April 2012 to March 2013. All interviews were conducted by telephone.

A Hamilton based research company DigiPoll Ltd, handled all the interviewing. The interviewing for this March 2013 quarter was undertaken between the 22

nd February and the 12

th March 2013.

Respondents were selected using DigiPoll‟s telephone sampling system developed specifically for New Zealand conditions that gives a random sample of the entire population that have landline telephones.

The questionnaire used a split path approach whereby all respondents were asked all the key questions but the sample was then split into two paths. The facilities and services were split with half the respondents rating one set of facilities and services while the second stream answered questions about the other set. The questionnaire was also modified to reduce this to only essential questions. Further time savings were made by only asking dissatisfied users why they were less than satisfied every second quarter (e.g. we ask dissatisfied respondents why they are less than satisfied for half the facilities and services in quarter‟s one and three, and the other half in quarter‟s two and four.).

Interviewers were briefed in the conduct of the survey, and were subject to a quality check on their interviews as a matter of course. Interviewers did not pressure respondents in any way. People who did not wish to take part in the survey were politely thanked for their time and not contacted again.



Margin of Error The following table shows the maximum margin of error for the overall sample and for smaller subgroups, at two different confidence levels, 95% and 90%

MAXIMUM MARGIN OF ERROR

SAMPLE SIZE AT 95% CONFIDENCE AT 90% CONFIDENCE

700 + 3.7% + 3.1%

600 + 4.0% + 3.4%

350 + 5.2% + 4.4%

175 + 7.4% + 6.2%

150 + 8.0% + 6.7%

50 +13.9% +11.7%

Sampling Methodology The sampling method is the same as that used in Council‟s full Annual Residents Surveys whereby DigiPoll has a telephone sampling system developed specifically for New Zealand conditions that gives a random sample of the entire population that have landline telephones. This provides a more representative method to the cluster sampling method using a telephone directory that previous research companies used. Using random digit dialling results in a greater proportion of new listings being included (students etc.) which is reflected in the sample‟s demographics.

Respondent Selection All respondents were randomly selected, being the person in the household aged 18 years or older, who had the last birthday. No substitutions were made.

Telephone calls were made after 5.00pm on week nights and between 9.00am and 9.00pm at weekends or by appointment at other times of the day. This ensures that the working population were correctly represented.

Call-backs were conducted to ensure that highly mobile people and/or those working unusual hours still had a good chance of being contacted for interviews. For telephone interviews, three call-backs were made at different times to each number. DigiPoll‟s call-back system maximised the chance of capturing all respondents from Hamilton.

Response Rate The response rate for this survey (completed interviews / interviews plus refusals) was 37.6% for the March 2013 quarter and 38.2% for the twelve months from April 2012 to March 2013, compared with 41.5% for the 2011/12 year and 38.1% for the 2010/11 year.

Number of contacts

Outcomes Jul 09 - Jun 10

Jul 10 - Jun 11

Jul 11 - Jun 12

Apr 12 - Mar 13

March 2013 quarter

Completed calls 705 700 681 701 175

Refusals 910 1135 959 1133 291

Interviewee problems 96 76 82 25 5

Ineligible 272 156 119 159 41

Computer/Fax/Modem 406 360 242 271 62

Answering Machine 438 388 376 437 91

Total 2827 2815 2459 2726 665

Response rate 43.7% 38.1% 41.5% 38.2% 37.6%



Data weighting With most random samples, there are subgroups of the population that tend to opt out of participating in surveys e.g. in this quarter only 44% of the interviews were with men as a higher proportion of men opted out of the survey (refused). Quotas by age and gender can be used, but these generally add a lot of cost with limited increased accuracy, but it makes the data appear more accurate.

With surveys undertaken to reflect the population of a geographic area, it is most important to correctly reflect the geographic spread of the population. Random sampling using quota controls by location, as used by DigiPoll, achieve this aim. These result in the most cost effective and representative sample being selected, but without demographic quotas by area, there are inevitably some imbalances in the demographic mix within each geographic area.

A simple cost effective method of correcting for this imbalance is by data weighting i.e. a weighting is given to ensure the sample reflects the actual population e.g. if 25% of the interviews were with respondents over 65 but we were only expecting 14% in the population, then a data weighting is applied to show the correct split.

The data weighting is calculated by age and gender across the city.

The following chart compares the demographic mix of the weighted and unweighted sample. The second chart highlights the effect that data weighting has on the CSI scores for each of the factors which were rated using the 11 point satisfaction scale. The weighting has reduced the CSI scores for most factors. This is caused by there being an over sampling of over 65 year olds and fewer under 25 year olds. Since the older respondents are generally more satisfied, the data weighting results in a truer but lower CSI score.

37

78

20

0

49

11

5

36

10

9

76

36

73

19

6

51

11

3

33

10

9

70

36

77

19

7

50

11

7

36

11

4

74

35

75

19

2

55

11

4

40

11

5

76

0

50

100

150

200

250

Flag

staf

f

Te R

apa

Cla

ud

elan

ds

Bry

mer

Fran

kto

n J

un

ctio

n

Ham

ilto

n C

entr

al

Ham

ilto

n E

ast

Mel

ville

Nu

mb

er o

f in

terv

iew

s

Jul 10 - Jun 11 Actual Jul 11 - Jun 12 Actual Apr 12 - Mar 13 Actual Apr 12 - Mar 13 Expected



The following chart compares the proportion of the sample in each of the demographic subgroups that make up the sample based on the raw data (unweighted) and the weighted sample. This shows that the largest impact of data weighting affects the gender and age split.

43

.5

56

.5

4.7

31

.2

37

.8

25

.0

76

.7

23

.3

74

.0

25

.8

19

.1

29

.5

36

.1

13

.1

86

.9

13

.3

27

.7 22

.1

24

.1

12

.8

47

.1

52

.9

9.0

47

.8

29

.0

13

.6

0.0

69

.2

30

.8

66

.0

33

.8

16

.0

30

.4

38

.9

13

.3

86

.7

12

.6

26

.7 22

.5

25

.0

13

.3

0

20

40

60

80

100

Men

Wo

men

Un

der 2

5 years

26

-4

5 years

46

-6

4 years

65

+ years

Pay rates

Do

n't p

ay rates

Ow

n h

om

e

Ren

t

Inco

me < $

30

k

$3

0k -

$7

0k

$7

0k+

Ow

n b

usin

ess

Do

n't O

wn

bu

siness

Beeresco

urt / P

ukete

Ch

artwell/Fairfield

Ham

ilton

East/Hillcrest

Din

sdale/N

awto

n

Melville/Lake

% o

f the sam

ple

Apr 12 - Mar 13 Unweighted Database % Apr 12 - Mar 13 Weighted Database %



Data weighting has a modest impact on the CSI scores for most of the facilities and services although there are a few exceptions to this rule. The largest variance in CSI score is 5.2 points for the factor „the outcome of your being involved in the Council decision making‟. Most variances are less than 1 point and for many, there is no significant difference at all. The larger variance tends to be due to small numbers of users rating that facility or service.

72

.26

2.0

81

.0

93

.88

9.9 8

8.1

87

.6 86

.38

6.3

86

.18

5.9

85

.48

4.3

84

.28

3.8

83

.78

3.6

83

.48

3.1

83

.08

2.7

82

.38

2.1

82

.08

1.9

81

.28

1.0

80

.78

0.5

80

.58

0.4

80

.18

0.0

79

.87

9.7

79

.57

8.6

77

.87

7.6

77

.57

7.3

77

.37

6.9

76

.97

6.8

76

.87

6.8

76

.37

6.2

76

.27

5.9

74

.97

4.7

74

.57

4.3

74

.37

4.2

73

.97

3.8

73

.7 72

.47

2.4

71

.57

0.5

69

.96

9.8

69

.86

8.7

68

.36

8.0

67

.8 66

.0 63

.56

3.3 6

1.6

55

.4

71

.56

0.6

80

.8

93

.08

9.7

88

.88

9.4

86

.38

6.8

87

.18

6.2

85

.7 84

.58

4.5

84

.48

3.6

84

.18

6.1 8

4.1

83

.08

3.3

83

.27

9.7

82

.48

2.0

83

.3 81

.18

1.4 7

9.7

80

.07

9.4

82

.9 81

.18

0.8

79

.87

9.5

79

.77

7.0

77

.27

7.2

77

.37

7.1

77

.5 76

.27

7.5 76

.27

8.1 7

6.0 7

4.5

74

.47

5.4

74

.57

4.8

74

.87

3.9

73

.87

3.4

73

.87

3.5

72

.37

3.4

73

.66

9.3

70

.76

5.1

70

.67

1.7

70

.26

5.9

67

.86

8.9 6

6.8

63

.26

3.4 6

1.3

55

.0

50

60

70

80

90

100

Overall p

erform

ance o

f Co

un

cilElected

Mem

bers

Co

un

cil staff

St An

drew

s Library o

verallC

on

tinu

ity of W

ater Sup

ply

Ham

ilton

Gard

ens

Hillcrest Lib

rary overall

Ho

useh

old

Refu

se Co

llection

Ham

ilton

Park C

emetery

Gard

en P

lace Library o

verallH

amilto

n Zo

oK

erbsid

e Recyclab

le Co

llection

Visito

r Info

rmatio

n C

entre

Clarity o

f the W

aterW

ater Pressu

reN

ight p

atrol in

the C

entral C

ityH

amilto

n as a p

lace to live

Glen

view Lib

rary overall

Ham

ilton

Organ

ic Cen

treC

ou

ncil's G

raffiti clean u

pW

astewater System

The H

amilto

n C

ity bu

s serviceH

and

ling o

f no

ise com

plain

tH

amilto

n Lake

Refu

se Transfer Statio

nC

hartw

ell Library o

verallC

ity Walkw

aysC

laud

eland

s Events C

entre

Ham

ilton

Transp

ort C

entre

Waikato

Stadiu

mO

utco

me o

f no

ise com

plain

tD

insd

ale Library o

verallA

rtsPo

stP

arks and

Gard

ens in

the C

ityG

etting aro

un

d in

no

n p

eak trafficM

ulti-level car p

ark in K

no

x StreetW

aikato M

useu

mC

ity New

sStreet ligh

ting in

general

Taste and

od

ou

r of th

e water

Gallagh

er Aq

uatic C

entre

Sedd

on

Park

Street lightin

g in yo

ur area

Leisure C

entre (YM

CA

)D

og C

on

trol Service

Ped

estrian Facilities

Waterw

orld

Streets wh

ere you

liveFo

otp

aths in

general

Foo

tpath

s in yo

ur area

Locatio

ns o

f crossin

gsTraffic M

anagem

ent

Spo

rts Areas

Ham

ilton

City C

ou

ncil W

ebsite

City B

eautificatio

nFo

un

ders Th

eatreP

edestrian

SafetySto

rmw

ater SystemStreets in

general

Po

rritt Stadiu

mC

larence Street Th

eatreN

eighb

ou

rho

od

Park

Pro

cess for C

ou

ncil d

ecision

makin

gA

lexand

ra Street un

dergro

un

d car p

arkTh

e ou

tcom

e of su

bm

ission

s etcO

ff-street car parkin

gTh

e Meteo

rP

laygrou

nd

equ

ipm

ent

Gard

en P

laceP

rovisio

n o

f info

rmatio

nP

ub

lic Toilets

Cyclin

g facilitiesC

entral C

ity car parkin

g in gen

eralH

amilto

n's C

BD

at nigh

tIn

volvem

ent in

Co

un

cil decisio

n m

aking

Gettin

g arou

nd

in p

eak traffic

CSI Sco

re

Apr 12 - Mar 13 Unweighted Database

Apr 12 - Mar 13 Weighted Database

Sample Profile March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013)


7.0 Sample Profile

Gender Similar to previous readings, there was an over representation of female respondents in the survey. Of those surveyed, 56% were women versus 44% men.

Past experience has shown that with local government type issues, there is a higher response rate from women. Consequently, they account for a greater portion of the sample.

With data weighting6, women account for 53%

of the sample.

Age The unweighted sample shows a disproportionate number of over 60 year olds, (35% versus 19% in the census). This is caused by more older people living alone and being more available for interviews. This anomaly has been corrected by data weighting

6.

Almost half of the weighted sample, (46%) is aged under 40. A fifth of the weighted sample (19%) were aged over 60, and the balance were aged in the 40 – 60 age bracket, (34%) or did not specify their age (0.7%).

6 Data weighting has been used since 2004 to correct the demographic imbalances in the random sample caused by certain subgroups opting out

more frequently (e.g. younger respondents / men). Refer methodology section for full explanation.

50.0

51.0

50.0

36.3

46.9

47.3

47.5

47.2

47.2

47.1

47.0

46.9

47.0

47.1

43.5

48.0

50.0

49.0

50.0

63.7

53.1

52.7

52.5

52.8

52.8

52.9

53.0

53.1

53.0

52.9

56.5

52.0

0 20 40 60 80 100

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Jul 2006 - Jun 2007

Jul 2007 - Jun 2008

Jul 2008 - Jun 2009

Jul 2009 - Jun 2010

Jul 2010 - Jun 2011

Jul 2011 - Jun 2012

Apr 2012 - Mar 2013

Apr 12 - Mar 13 (unweighted)

2006 Census

% of the sample

Men Women

2

3

2

1

3

2

2

1

1

1

1

0

5

14

14

12

15

19

14

17

20

20

16

17

20

15

14

7

24

24

18

22

17

25

29

27

24

28

29

30

27

30

32

17

19

23

26

21

26

18

20

19

17

17

18

17

18

17

18

20

18

19

21

23

15

16

14

14

16

16

16

16

15

18

16

19

14

18

19

20

25

18

19

20

21

19

20

18

19

19

19

35

19

0 20 40 60 80 100

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Jul 2006 - Jun 2007

Jul 2007 - Jun 2008

Jul 2008 - Jun 2009

Jul 2009 - Jun 2010

Jul 2010 - Jun 2011

Jul 2011 - Jun 2012

Apr 2012 - Mar 2013

Apr 12 - Mar 13 (unweighted)

2006 Census

% of the sample

18-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+ Refused/No reply

March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013) Sample Profile


Home Ownership Two thirds of the weighted sample, (66%) owned or lived in the family home. A third of the sample (32%) said they rented or leased, with the balance stating that they boarded (1%) or had some other arrangement (0.6%).

Type of Accommodation The vast majority of respondents (n = 701) lived in a stand-alone house (88%).

Only 11% of the respondents lived in a flat or apartment while 1% described their accommodation as something else.

Note: 28% of those who rent described their accommodation as a flat or apartment while only 3% of those who lived in their own home lived in a flat or apartment.

It appears that some respondents consider they live in a flat even if this is a stand-alone house.

The other types of accommodation mentioned this quarter included:

live in a Rest home

Retirement Village

No answer

89

80

78

72

67

70

68

70

66

68

67

66

65

66

9

19

19

25

31

29

31

28

33

31

31

32

32

32

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

2

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Jul 2006 - Jun 2007

Jul 2007 - Jun 2008

Jul 2008 - Jun 2009

Jul 2009 - Jun 2010

Jul 2010 - Jun 2011

Jul 2011 - Jun 2012

Apr 2012 - Mar 2013

% of the sample

Own or live in family home Rent or lease Board Other

Stand alone house 87.6%

Flat or apartment

11.4%

Other1.0%



Number of residents An eighth of the sample were a household with a single respondents (12%) while 28% of the respondents normally had two people living in their houses. A fifth of the sample (20%) had three people while 20% normally had four people living in their houses. A fifth of the sample (19%) normally had 5 or more people living in their houses.

One respondent did not answer this question.

Focusing only on those aged 18 or older paints a very different picture, with over half of the sample (58%) normally having two people aged 18 or older living in their houses. A fifth of the sample (18%) had a single resident aged over 18.

A seventh of the sample (15%) had three people aged over 18 while 6% normally had four people aged over 18 living in their houses. Only 3% of the sample normally had five or more people aged over 18 living in their houses.

As would be expected, a higher proportion of those who rent had three or more people aged over 18 living in their houses (31% versus 20% for those who live in their own house).

Type of Accommodation Over half of the respondents lived with family (56%) while 22% were living with their spouse or partner. An eighth of the respondents (13%) were living alone.

Only 9% of the respondents lived with others who were not family while 0.2% did not answer this question.

Note: 19% of those who rent lived with others who were not family while only 4% of those who lived in their own home lived with others who were not family.

12.2

28.2

20.2

20.4

18.9

0.2

18.1

57.9

15.2

5.9

2.8

0.2

0 20 40 60 80

One only

Two

Three

Four

Five or more

Other

% of the quarterly sample

# of people # aged over 18

Living alone12.6%

Living with spouse /

partner only22.2%

Living with family56.3%

Living with others, not

family8.7%

Refused0.2%



Employment Status Half of the weighted sample, (51%) worked in full time paid employment. A further fifth of the sample (18%) were in part time employment. A third of the sample (31%) were not in paid employment. The results are similar to previous years.

Household Income There was a fairly even spread of respondents across the different levels of household income. Similar to previous years, a seventh of the respondents (15%) declined to give their income.

Over a third of the weighted sample (39%) had a household income of over $70,000.

At the other end of the scale, a sixth of the sample (16%) had a household income of less than $30,000.

The remaining 30% had a household income of between $30,000 and $70,000.

The spread is similar to that obtained in previous years.

56

58

51

56

53

51

16

16

18

17

18

18

28

26

31

28

30

31

0 20 40 60 80 100

Jul 2007 - Jun 2008

Jul 2008 - Jun 2009

Jul 2009 - Jun 2010

Jul 2010 - Jun 2011

Jul 2011 - Jun 2012

Apr 2012 - Mar 2013

% of the sample

Full time Part Time Not working

13

12

15

14

11

11

6

9

9

9

6

8

9

13

10

13

9

10

10

8

9

9

9

9

9

8

13

12

13

10

9

9

12

9

7

9

8

7

7

13

12

10

8

9

10

9

9

9

7

6

11

9

17

19

17

16

17

14

15

15

14

13

15

15

15

12

15

14

14

16

17

17

18

20

18

19

16

18

9

11

9

8

14

15

18

17

20

19

22

20

21

10

8

10

21

15

14

14

12

12

16

15

14

15

0 20 40 60 80 100

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Jul 2006 - Jun 2007

Jul 2007 - Jun 2008

Jul 2008 - Jun 2009

Jul 2009 - Jun 2010

Jul 2010 - Jun 2011

Jul 2011 - Jun 2012

Apr 2012 - Mar 2013

% of the sample

Less than $20,000 $20,000 to $30,000 $30,000 to $40,000

$40,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $70,000 $70,000 to $100,000

More than $100,000 Don't know/No reply



Dog ownership A fifth of respondents (20%) had dogs. This is similar to previous years.

Voting in the last Hamilton City Council elections Two thirds of respondents (70%) said they voted in the last Hamilton City Council elections. This is similar to previous years.

-78.0

-79.0

-77.7

-82.8

-80.7

-82.3

-82.8

-80.0

-80.2

-80.3

-78.9

-81.1

-80.8

22.0

21.0

22.3

17.2

19.3

17.7

17.2

20.0

19.8

19.7

21.1

18.9

19.2

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Jul 2006 - Jun 2007

Jul 2007 - Jun 2008

Jul 2008 - Jun 2009

Jul 2009 - Jun 2010

Jul 2010 - Jun 2011

Jul 2011 - Jun 2012

Jan 2012 - Dec 2012

% of the sample

No dogs Yes, own dogs

-32.3

-36.9

-33.9

-34.3

-35.6

-31.3

-30.5

67.7

63.1

66.1

65.7

64.4

68.7

69.5

-50 -25 0 25 50 75 100

Jul 2006 - Jun 2007

Jul 2007 - Jun 2008

Jul 2008 - Jun 2009

Jul 2009 - Jun 2010

Jul 2010 - Jun 2011

Jul 2011 - Jun 2012

Apr 2012 - Mar 2013

% of the sample

Did not vote Voted



Own/Operate own business in Hamilton An eighth of respondents in the weighted sample (13%) owned or operated their own business in Hamilton.

Number of Employees Respondents who owned or operated their own business (n = 92) were asked „How many employees does your company employ? (If many part timers, please estimate “full time equivalents”)‟

Over half of the subgroup (59%) employed 1 to 2 full time equivalents while 13% employed 3 to 5 full time equivalents.

A tenth of the subgroup who owned or operated their own business (10%) employed 10 or more full time equivalents while 6% employed 6 to 10 full time equivalents.

-82

-82

-82.2

-84.1

-85.2

-84.9

-84

-86.5

-85.1

-86.7

-85.3

-86.0

-86.7

18.0

18.0

17.8

15.9

14.8

15.1

16.0

13.5

14.9

13.3

14.7

14.0

13.3

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Jul 2006 - Jun 2007

Jul 2007 - Jun 2008

Jul 2008 - Jun 2009

Jul 2009 - Jun 2010

Jul 2010 - Jun 2011

Jul 2011 - Jun 2012

Apr 2012 - Mar 2013

% of the sample

Not own or operate a business

Own or operate own business

1 to 2 full time

equivalents59.4%

3 – 5 full time equivalents

13.3%

6 – 10 full time

equivalents6.3%

Over 10 full time

equivalents10.4%

Other 10.6%



Ethnic Group Respondents were asked „Which ethnic group do you most closely relate to?‟

Over half of the respondents (57%) said they were New Zealanders of European descent while a further 4% said they were either European or British.

A seventh of the sample (14%) said they were New Zealanders of Maori descent.

A smaller proportion (8%) said they were New Zealanders or Kiwis without giving further explanation.

A few (4%) said they most closely related to being Indian while 3% said they were Pacific Islanders and 8% said they were of Asian origin.

There were a few other ethnicities mentioned (2%) and 0.1% did not answer this question.

Location of residents The chart opposite compares the recoded survey data for the four quarters to March 2013 with the previous results.

The spread of respondents across the five areas (shown on the map on the next page) is similar to previous results.

New Zealander of Maori descent

14.0%

New Zealander of European descent

56.8%

European / British3.9%

Pacific Islander2.8%

Asian8.0%

New Zealander / Kiwi8.2%

Indian3.9%

Other2.3%

No answer0.1%

20

20

20

21

21

21

22

27

24

25

29

25

16

18

16

14

17

14

14

12

12

12

12

13

24

26

26

27

25

28

29

28

28

29

26

27

24

21

24

24

25

23

21

22

24

23

21

23

15

16

15

14

13

15

14

11

11

12

13

13

0 20 40 60 80 100

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Jul 2006 - Jun 2007

Jul 2007 - Jun 2008

Jul 2008 - Jun 2009

Jul 2009 - Jun 2010

Jul 2010 - Jun 2011

Jul 2011 - Jun 2012

Apr 2012 - Mar 2013

% of the sample

Dinsdale/Nawton Beerescourt / Pukete

Chartwell/Fairfield Hamilton East/Hillcrest

Melville/Lake



Map of Hamilton City showing the 1995 electoral ward boundaries

1. Dinsdale/Nawton area – Brymer, Burbush, Crawshaw, Dinsdale North, Dinsdale South, Frankton Junction, Grandview,

Nawton, Rotokauri, Swarbrick, Templeview Census Area Units (CAU‟s)

2. Beerescourt/Pukete area – Beerescourt, Bryant, Hamilton Central, Maeroa, Pukete, Pukete West, Te Rapa CAU‟s

3. Chartwell/Fairfield area – Chartwell, Chedworth, Clarkin, Enderley, Fairview Downs, Flagstaff, Horsham Downs, Huntington, Insoll, Porritt, Rototuna, Queenwood, Sylvester CAU‟s

4. Hamilton East/Hillcrest area – Claudelands, Silverdale (Dalesford), Hamilton East, Hillcrest West, Naylor, Peachgrove,

Riverlea, University CAU‟s

5. Melville/Lake area – Bader, Glenview, Hamilton Lake, Melville, Peacocke CAU‟s

Please note that the five areas shown above are based on electoral ward boundaries last used in the 1995 Hamilton City Council election. Although the city currently uses a 2 ward system, the former 5 wards have been used in the Annual Residents Survey to enable a more detailed geographic analysis of the data. These wards are also used for Council‟s neighbourhood and youth worker networks.



Map showing the 44 Census Area Units that make up Hamilton City.

Census Area Units (CAU‟s) are non-administrative areas defined by Statistics New Zealand. In the 2006 Census, there were 44 CAUs in Hamilton City.



Census Area Unit Recodes Respondents were asked which Census Area Unit (CAU) they lived in. To allow us to validate the CAU, we asked each respondent the following: „To allow us to analyse the data by census area can you please tell us the nearest intersection to your property?‟

The majority of respondents provided this information, which allowed us to manually check the CAU for each respondent.

After manually checking the responses, 42% were re-coded into a different CAU. The balance had either provided the correct CAU (54%) or did not provide street references to be able to validate them (5%).

Appears correct53.5%

Recoded41.5%

Not enough information

5.0%

Summary Tables March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013)


8.0 Summary Tables

Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) – Customer Choice On a moving annual total basis, there were 51 increases and 18 decreases in CSI scores compared to the July 2011 – June 2012 period but most moves were small. Twelve new factors were added to the questionnaire in the September 2012 quarter. Among Customer Choice services and facilities there were 24 increases and 8 decreases.


Jul 08 – Jun 09

Jul 09 – Jun 10

Jul 10 – Jun 11

Jul 11 – Jun 12

Apr 12 – Mar 13


Decreases Increases




Hamilton Gardens 87.4 88.0 88.2 87.3 88.1 0.9


Garden Place Library overall 82.2 83.8 81.9 83.1 86.1 2.9

Hamilton Zoo 82.8 84.0 85.6 83.6 85.9 2.3

Visitor Information Centre 78.6 84.6 83.7 86.7 84.3 -2.3




Hamilton Organic Centre 84.5 82.6 82.8 79.2 83.1 3.9


The Hamilton City bus service 77.1 81.4 77.1 83.1 82.3 -0.8

Hamilton Lake 79.1 80.4 81.3 80.9 82.0 1.1

Refuse Transfer Station 81.7 81.8 81.8 80.6 81.9 1.4





City Walkways 78.6 78.7 79.2 80.7 81.0 0.3

Claudelands Events Centre 65.7 66.4 69.9 80.5 80.7 0.2

Hamilton Transport Centre 76.6 79.2 75.5 80.9 80.5 -0.4

Waikato Stadium 81.5 78.5 77.8 79.4 80.5 1.1


ArtsPost 78.6 80.1 79.4 76.9 80.0 3.1

Multi-level car park in Knox Street 76.9 76.1 77.0 75.9 79.5 3.6

Waikato Museum 75.6 78.7 79.5 78.9 78.6 -0.3

City News 78.4 79.1 76.7 76.0 77.8 1.8


Gallagher Aquatic Centre 77.5 76.2 76.5 73.3 77.3 4.1

Seddon Park 78.1 78.3 77.3 76.1 77.3 1.2


Leisure Centre (YMCA) 63.4 63.6 70.4 73.1 76.9 3.8

Waterworld 78.4 77.8 76.2 77.2 76.8 -0.4

Sports Areas 70.7 70.9 71.4 73.9 74.7 0.8

Hamilton City Council Website 74.7 79.8 78.0 74.9 74.5 -0.4

Founders Theatre 75.5 76.5 74.7 73.5 74.3 0.8

March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013) Summary Tables



Jul 08 – Jun 09

Jul 09 – Jun 10

Jul 10 – Jun 11

Jul 11 – Jun 12

Apr 12 – Mar 13


Decreases Increases


Porritt Stadium 75.3 73.6 66.8 69.1 73.7 4.7


Clarence Street Theatre 70.4 72.2 72.5 70.6 72.4 1.8

Neighbourhood Park 70.3 71.5 69.6 70.2 72.4 2.2


Off-street car parking 67.5 66.6 69.7 70.4 69.8 -0.6

The Meteor 68.4 74.9 67.6 69.6 69.8 0.2

Playground equipment 62.2 68.8 68.3 67.1 68.7 1.6

Garden Place 68.6 71.1 63.8 65.4 68.3 2.9


Hamilton's CBD at night 63.1 66.9 67.2 65.0 63.3 -1.7

Satisfaction with ‘No Customer Choice’ Services and Facilities Among the No Customer Choice services and facilities, there were 27 increases and 10 decreases and two factors were unchanged.

NO CUSTOMER CHOICE FACILITIES AND SERVICES: PERFORMANCE INTERPRETATION

Jul 08 – Jun 09

Jul 09 – Jun 10

Jul 10 – Jun 11

Jul 11 – Jun 12

Apr 12 – Mar 13


Decreases Increases


Continuity of Water Supply 87.5 88.5 89.5 90.1 89.9 -0.2

Household Refuse Collection 86.3 87.1 86.5 88.3 86.3 -2.0

Kerbside Recyclable Collection 84.6 84.6 85.5 86.2 85.4 -0.8

Hamilton Park Cemetery 84.4 81.5 82.7 84.3 86.3 2.0

Clarity of the Water 81.9 84.9 85.3 82.4 84.2 1.7

Water Pressure 84.6 85.3 85.7 84.1 83.8 -0.3

Hamilton as a place to live 83.0 82.4 83.2 83.4 83.6 0.2

Wastewater System 82.9 82.2 84.7 83.1 82.7 -0.4

Night patrol in the Central City 77.5 78.6 79.0 82.4 83.7 1.3

Council's Graffiti clean up 72.5 78.2 78.4 79.9 83.0 3.1

Handling of noise complaint 80.5 74.1 81.4 70.4 82.1 11.8

Council staff 79.8 81.7 81.5 81.8 81.0 -0.8

Outcome of noise complaint 76.5 70.8 73.9 69.8 80.4 10.6

Getting around in non peak traffic 80.6 81.7 80.8 80.7 79.7 -0.9

Parks and Gardens in the City 79.0 78.9 77.9 78.1 79.8 1.7


Street lighting in general 76.5 77.7 77.1 77.4 77.6 0.2

Taste and odour of the water 74.3 79.4 77.7 77.3 77.5 0.2

Pedestrian Facilities 74.9 77.3 76.3 75.3 76.8 1.5

Street lighting in your area 73.5 75.3 74.9 74.2 76.9 2.7

Dog Control Service 78.7 80.5 82.5 75.8 76.8 1.0



Jul 08 – Jun 09

Jul 09 – Jun 10

Jul 10 – Jun 11

Jul 11 – Jun 12

Apr 12 – Mar 13


Decreases Increases


Streets where you live 76.2 75.3 76.5 75.5 76.3 0.8

Footpaths in general 75.5 77.1 76.5 76.1 76.2 0.2

Footpaths in your area 75.2 76.1 76.7 76.0 76.2 0.2

Locations of crossings 75.4 77.1 75.6 75.8 75.9 0.1

Traffic Management 76.2 74.8 74.7 74.9 74.9 0.1

City Beautification 76.6 73.5 74.1 76.9 74.3 -2.6

Pedestrian Safety 74.1 75.4 74.5 72.7 74.2 1.5

Stormwater System 74.7 77.7 76.5 73.9 73.9 -0.1

Streets in general 73.5 73.4 73.7 72.4 73.8 1.4


Overall performance of Council 74.9 76.4 74.2 71.5 72.2 0.7

Process for Council decision making 63.2 62.9 73.3 69.6 71.5 1.9

The outcome of submissions etc 60.6 58.1 71.2 69.7 69.9 0.2

Provision of information 66.7 68.6 68.0 66.4 68.0 1.5

Public Toilets 68.5 69.6 70.3 72.8 67.8 -5.0


Cycling facilities 66.5 62.6 68.5 64.9 66.0 1.2

Central City car parking in general 63.9 58.8 63.9 62.4 63.5 1.1

Elected Members 70.6 71.5 67.9 61.4 62.0 0.5

Involvement in Council decision making 60.5 62.8 59.9 61.1 61.6 0.6


Getting around in peak traffic 55.9 55.7 57.7 56.4 55.4 -1.0

March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013) Summary Tables


Summary Tables – Customer Choice CSI score Quarterly Comparisons

CUSTOMER CHOICE FACILITIES AND SERVICES: QUARTERLY CSI SCORE COMPARISONS

MAT Quarterly results Difference to last quarter

Apr 12 – Mar 13 (n = 701)

Jun 10 Qtr (n =

176)

Sep 10 Qtr (n =

175)

Dec 10 Qtr (n =

175)

Mar 11 Qtr (n =

175)

Jun 11 Qtr (n =

175

Sep 11 Qtr (n =

151)

Dec 11 Qtr (n =

180)

Mar 12 Qtr (n =

175)

Jun 12 Qtr (n =

175

Sep 12 Qtr (n =

176)

Dec 12 Qtr (n =

175)

Mar 13 Qtr (n =

175) Decrease Increase


St Andrews Library overall 93.8 91.0 92.9 100.0 7.1

Opening hours Garden Place Library 89.9 89.4 91.3 88.4 -2.8

Hamilton Gardens 88.1 87.0 87.7 89.9 87.1 87.9 85.9 90.1 87.5 85.3 86.6 89.4 90.5 1.1

Hillcrest Library overall 87.6 83.5 87.3 92.1 4.8

Garden Place (Central) Library 86.1 86.1 82.8 80.9 83.7 80.2 83.3 79.6 87.3 82.5 87.7 86.5 89.3 2.8

Hamilton Zoo 85.9 87.2 86.9 83.8 89.5 83.0 85.0 80.0 81.9 86.6 83.5 89.7 82.3 -7.4

Visitor Information Centre 84.3 83.7 87.3 83.5 84.0 81.1 84.8 83.1 92.7 85.7 82.5 87.2 83.8 -3.4

Opening hours Glenview Library 84.1 86.6 81.1 85.9 4.8


Glenview Library overall 83.4 84.5 81.5 84.8 3.3

Hamilton Organic Centre 83.1 85.6 84.8 81.4 83.4 81.6 81.2 77.3 80.4 78.2 85.1 83.2 86.9 3.7

Opening hours Hillcrest Library 82.9 81.6 89.6 75.9 -13.7

The Hamilton City bus service 82.3 78.2 73.1 79.4 80.2 75.5 77.6 87.5 81.8 85.1 85.7 78.5 82.0 3.5

Hamilton Lake 82.0 81.1 79.7 83.8 80.5 81.4 76.7 83.3 78.7 83.7 79.6 80.4 83.9 3.5

Refuse Transfer Station 81.9 80.8 81.7 79.1 84.8 82.0 80.9 77.0 84.7 79.3 81.6 81.5 85.9 4.5

Opening hours St Andrews Library 81.8 91.0 81.9 72.8 -9.1

Opening hours Chartwell Library 81.6 80.7 85.9 73.5 -12.4


Chartwell Library overall 81.2 84.9 83.3 74.0 -9.3

City Walkways 81.0 78.6 78.7 80.4 79.3 78.4 76.8 81.8 80.8 82.6 75.9 80.1 84.4 4.3

Claudelands Events Centre 80.7 66.8 65.4 67.9 74.5 72.6 81.8 79.8 81.4 79.3 77.2 83.5 83.7 0.1

Hamilton Transport Centre 80.5 73.1 77.6 75.7 71.2 76.9 76.3 83.1 81.9 81.4 79.2 83.7 78.0 -5.7

Waikato Stadium 80.5 66.6 76.3 75.7 81.9 77.7 76.8 80.3 81.5 79.4 80.7 79.6 83.3 3.7

Dinsdale Library overall 80.1 81.2 81.7 76.8 -4.9



CUSTOMER CHOICE FACILITIES AND SERVICES: QUARTERLY CSI SCORE COMPARISONS


Apr 12 – Mar 13 (n = 701)

Jun 10 Qtr (n =

176)

Sep 10 Qtr (n =

175)

Dec 10 Qtr (n =

175)

Mar 11 Qtr (n =

175)

Jun 11 Qtr (n =

175

Sep 11 Qtr (n =

151)

Dec 11 Qtr (n =

180)

Mar 12 Qtr (n =

175)

Jun 12 Qtr (n =

175

Sep 12 Qtr (n =

176)

Dec 12 Qtr (n =

175)

Mar 13 Qtr (n =



ArtsPost 80.0 79.5 73.7 78.8 85.0 79.1 72.0 76.4 80.0 78.4 80.9 82.6 78.4 -4.2

Multi-level car park in Knox Street 79.5 74.8 77.8 82.2 72.8 76.2 73.3 75.4 77.5 76.9 79.6 76.3 86.2 10.0

Waikato Museum 78.6 82.5 77.3 79.2 82.4 78.5 73.8 80.9 79.2 80.4 72.7 83.4 76.0 -7.4

City News 77.8 78.9 76.7 75.8 80.7 73.8 80.5 75.1 76.1 73.6 78.0 79.5 80.1 0.6


Gallagher Aquatic Centre 77.3 72.6 73.2 84.4 72.1 77.0 79.0 74.3 65.2 77.9 81.3 74.0 79.2 5.3

Seddon Park 77.3 89.7 78.2 76.7 81.2 74.6 81.0 74.6 69.7 79.3 70.0 81.8 77.4 -4.4

Opening hours Dinsdale Library 77.2 81.2 79.2 70.4 -8.7

Hamilton City Leisure Centre (YMCA) 76.9 69.9 75.3 63.2 63.3 73.2 69.8 65.7 75.1 81.3 72.5 75.7 75.3 -0.4

Waterworld 76.8 78.1 72.4 79.1 77.5 75.5 78.2 73.4 80.1 77.4 76.2 81.5 71.5 -10.0

Sports Areas 74.7 70.2 69.4 72.6 72.5 72.0 73.1 73.1 74.4 74.7 68.8 77.0 76.3 -0.7

Hamilton City Council Website 74.5 85.0 81.3 77.5 79.4 75.0 71.9 76.8 75.5 74.6 71.5 76.0 76.9 0.9

Founders Theatre 74.3 82.5 72.8 71.9 79.8 75.0 72.2 74.5 71.5 75.4 67.8 77.4 78.0 0.6

Porritt Stadium 73.7 63.7 65.5 61.9 70.7 66.0 71.8 70.4 61.8 72.0 72.7 73.0 77.7 4.7


Clarence Street Theatre 72.4 70.9 74.9 68.3 72.2 73.5 68.0 72.4 68.6 73.4 69.4 67.6 82.0 14.3

Neighbourhood Park 72.4 71.7 68.6 73.0 65.3 71.5 66.8 73.4 72.0 67.8 67.5 76.7 76.5 -0.2

Alexandra Street underground car park 70.5 68.4 66.9 68.9 70.4 72.8 71.8 69.5 69.7 67.0 74.3 75.2 66.2 -9.1

Off-street car parking 69.8 64.7 61.9 75.0 70.1 70.9 72.7 65.8 73.9 70.0 65.7 74.4 69.7 -4.7

The Meteor 69.8 77.9 68.4 67.3 68.2 67.2 64.1 70.2 66.5 76.2 59.9 75.8 66.9 -8.9

Playground equipment 68.7 69.1 63.9 74.0 69.7 64.1 58.2 69.4 72.6 66.5 65.4 72.5 69.7 -2.8

Garden Place in Central Hamilton 68.3 72.3 67.1 63.4 62.3 62.0 61.1 63.9 65.9 70.1 67.1 70.1 65.7 -4.4


Hamilton's CBD at night 63.3 66.4 64.8 70.5 66.1 68.3 64.7 65.5 69.0 62.4 62.2 70.5 58.4 -12.1

March 2013 Report (April 2012 – March 2013) Prepared for Hamilton City Council


Summary Tables – No Customer Choice CSI score Quarterly Comparisons

NO CUSTOMER CHOICE FACILITIES AND SERVICES: QUARTERLY CSI SCORE COMPARISONS


Apr 12 – Mar 13 (n = 701)

Jun 10 Qtr (n =

176)

Sep 10 Qtr (n =

175)

Dec 10 Qtr (n =

175)

Mar 11 Qtr (n =

175)

Jun 11 Qtr (n =

175

Sep 11 Qtr (n =

151)

Dec 11 Qtr (n =

180)

Mar 12 Qtr (n =

175)

Jun 12 Qtr (n =

175

Sep 12 Qtr (n =

176)

Dec 12 Qtr (n =

175)

Mar 13 Qtr (n =



Continuity of Water Supply 89.9 88.7 89.1 88.7 91.3 88.9 90.9 88.7 89.1 92.0 87.8 92.4 87.5 -4.9

Household Refuse Collection 86.3 87.8 87.0 88.3 84.9 86.0 90.1 86.8 89.6 86.8 86.5 85.1 87.0 1.9

Kerbside Recyclable Collection 85.4 85.2 84.6 86.9 89.1 82.2 87.3 85.7 88.6 83.2 84.4 87.4 86.9 -0.5

Hamilton Park Cemetery 86.3 83.5 81.0 80.7 85.6 83.7 84.0 81.0 84.1 87.2 85.1 86.4 86.7 0.4

Clarity of the Water 84.2 86.1 85.1 84.0 87.1 84.9 82.0 81.8 84.0 81.8 84.1 88.1 82.6 -5.5

Water Pressure 83.8 87.9 87.3 82.0 87.0 86.7 82.6 86.0 85.5 82.2 81.8 87.9 83.7 -4.2

Hamilton as a place to live 83.6 83.4 82.3 85.2 82.6 82.8 82.1 83.3 85.4 82.5 82.1 85.4 84.4 -1.0

Wastewater System 82.7 83.4 85.8 85.2 86.2 82.3 81.4 83.5 86.6 80.1 78.2 86.4 86.1 -0.4

Night patrol in the Central City 83.7 78.0 77.1 74.5 86.0 79.2 83.7 82.0 81.9 82.0 80.7 88.1 84.8 -3.3

Council's Graffiti clean up 83.0 74.6 78.9 79.1 78.4 77.2 74.0 80.0 82.2 82.5 82.5 81.1 85.8 4.7

Handling of noise complaint 82.1 79.3 69.5 79.5 88.1 85.9 81.3 70.3 61.0 63.4 84.6 73.9 89.4 15.5

Council staff 81.0 81.9 81.9 81.3 82.0 81.0 80.6 80.3 83.1 82.9 80.1 79.3 81.9 2.6

Outcome of noise complaint 80.4 72.8 69.0 72.8 77.6 75.0 79.3 76.1 56.1 67.8 83.4 73.9 84.7 10.8

Getting around in non peak traffic 79.7 82.5 78.0 80.3 83.4 81.9 80.8 82.9 80.9 78.0 80.1 80.7 80.1 -0.6

Parks and Gardens in the City 79.8 77.6 76.2 80.3 77.1 78.3 77.5 77.2 79.7 78.2 75.1 82.2 83.3 1.1


Street lighting in general 77.6 75.1 76.3 78.0 79.3 74.3 75.2 77.5 82.2 75.0 77.1 79.8 78.3 -1.5

Taste and odour of the water 77.5 80.6 76.6 79.8 78.2 76.3 75.7 77.8 77.2 78.4 79.1 79.4 72.6 -6.8

Pedestrian Facilities 76.8 75.4 74.9 79.9 75.2 75.3 73.4 76.0 76.9 74.9 77.2 80.5 74.9 -5.7

Street lighting in your area 76.9 72.8 75.0 78.1 77.4 68.4 71.2 76.0 77.7 71.5 77.8 78.2 80.0 1.7

Dog Control Service 76.8 75.3 84.2 86.2 78.0 81.4 79.4 73.4 79.9 73.5 68.5 89.3 82.4 -6.9



NO CUSTOMER CHOICE FACILITIES AND SERVICES: QUARTERLY CSI SCORE COMPARISONS


Apr 12 – Mar 13 (n = 701)

Jun 10 Qtr (n =

176)

Sep 10 Qtr (n =

175)

Dec 10 Qtr (n =

175)

Mar 11 Qtr (n =

175)

Jun 11 Qtr (n =

175

Sep 11 Qtr (n =

151)

Dec 11 Qtr (n =

180)

Mar 12 Qtr (n =

175)

Jun 12 Qtr (n =

175

Sep 12 Qtr (n =

176)

Dec 12 Qtr (n =

175)

Mar 13 Qtr (n =



Streets where you live 76.3 73.3 76.3 78.6 73.5 78.0 73.6 76.8 78.2 73.4 77.2 77.8 76.8 -1.0

Footpaths in general 76.2 76.3 75.9 78.5 75.3 76.2 74.4 76.1 79.7 74.2 77.1 76.8 76.8

Footpaths in your area 76.2 74.7 76.6 78.5 75.4 76.5 76.2 75.5 80.8 71.9 78.6 75.5 78.6 3.1

Locations of crossings 75.9 77.2 75.6 76.8 74.5 75.4 72.6 77.1 77.8 75.6 75.5 77.1 75.6 -1.4

Traffic Management 74.9 73.6 74.9 73.7 74.6 75.9 73.5 77.5 77.9 70.4 79.8 75.0 74.6 -0.4

City Beautification 74.3 72.2 73.0 75.0 75.9 72.6 72.9 79.2 80.7 74.0 71.5 76.4 75.6 -0.8

Pedestrian Safety 74.2 74.5 73.8 78.2 74.1 71.4 72.4 71.6 75.2 71.8 74.3 77.5 73.4 -4.1

Stormwater System 73.9 80.8 78.3 76.3 82.5 70.6 69.5 76.9 77.4 71.1 70.0 76.3 78.7 2.4

Streets in general 73.8 72.9 74.7 74.2 71.8 74.4 71.4 70.9 75.5 72.1 73.6 75.4 74.2 -1.2


Overall performance of Council 72.2 76.4 75.0 75.1 74.3 72.4 73.8 69.9 72.2 70.6 71.6 72.9 73.8 0.9

Process for Council decision making 71.5 66.9 82.9 67.1 74.2 74.2 66.6 66.6 70.7 73.3 72.9 69.5 69.4 -0.2

The outcome of submissions etc 69.9 62.9 78.2 66.2 78.1 66.8 67.3 67.8 72.7 70.3 69.9 68.7 70.8 2.1

Provision of information 68.0 67.1 69.5 68.8 68.1 65.7 70.2 64.1 67.7 64.2 68.3 70.7 68.7 -2.0

Public Toilets 67.8 65.9 68.5 70.4 74.5 67.6 72.5 71.5 79.4 67.9 60.2 72.8 69.7 -3.2


Cycling facilities 66.0 61.4 66.7 67.7 76.0 65.5 68.4 64.6 71.6 59.8 58.1 69.1 75.6 6.5

Central City car parking in general 63.5 58.6 61.5 66.9 61.5 66.8 63.1 55.6 68.7 64.0 64.6 65.8 59.7 -6.1

Elected Members 62.0 70.5 68.9 67.5 68.1 67.3 66.9 60.7 60.1 59.0 61.9 62.4 64.8 2.3

Involvement in Council decision making 61.6 61.3 59.9 60.6 61.8 57.3 66.8 59.7 61.6 57.2 62.1 63.4 63.7 0.4


Getting around in peak traffic 55.4 56.4 57.7 60.4 58.4 53.8 56.0 60.3 58.3 50.9 60.0 54.6 55.9 1.4



Summary Tables – Other Indexes Quarterly Comparisons


Apr 12 – Mar 13 (n = 701)

Jun 10 Qtr (n =

176)

Sep 10 Qtr (n =

175)

Dec 10 Qtr (n =

175)

Mar 11 Qtr (n =

175)

Jun 11 Qtr (n =

175

Sep 11 Qtr (n =

151)

Dec 11 Qtr (n =

180)

Mar 12 Qtr (n =

175)

Jun 12 Qtr (n =

175

Sep 12 Qtr (n =

176)

Dec 12 Qtr (n =

175)

Mar 13 Qtr (n =


OTHER INDEXES: QUARTERLY INDEX COMPARISONS

Pride in Hamilton's look and feel 79.8 79.6 79.9

Safety in the neighbourhood you live in 79.3 78.4 79.3 80.9 77.7 81.0 78.3 83.8 78.8 77.4 77.1 81.5 81.2 -0.3

Noise pollution in neighbourhood 75.1 71.2 75.5 76.1 71.7 72.5 71.8 72.5 74.4 73.5 75.8 78.4 72.7 -5.8

Quality improved or deteriorated 71.3 73.6 73.1 72.1 71.9 71.5 73.4 72.0 73.7 68.7 69.8 72.2 74.6 2.3

Graffiti problem in neighbourhood 71.0 61.8 70.8 69.3 68.2 70.4 64.9 72.0 71.2 67.2 70.0 73.9 72.8 -1.1

Value from residential rates 65.1 69.3 69.7 70.0 67.8 67.9 65.8 67.3 69.8 63.6 60.2 67.4 69.2 1.8

Safety in Central City area at night 63.2 61.2 64.6 65.7 61.4 62.9 62.1 60.6 64.2 62.6 61.8 67.9 60.4 -7.5



Summary Usage Tables – Comparison to history

Summary table – Percentage who used facility/service in the past 12 months -1998 to March 2013 (Weighted data from 20047)

Used in the past 12 months Change from

Jul 11 – Jun 12

Facility / Service 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Jul 06 - Jun 07

Jul 07 - Jun 08

Jul 08 - Jun 09

Jul 09 - Jun 10

Jul 10 – Jun 11

Jul 11 – Jun 12

Apr 12 – Mar 13 Decreases Increases

Kerbside Recycling 80.2 91.0 90.4 92.7 89.7 92.2 91.9 95.9 4.0

Pedestrian facilities 94.5 94.1 90.1 91.0 92.5 93.4 91.9 91.0 -0.9

Parks and Gardens 74 70 86 85 91.6 87.3 76.3 85.4 86.0 81.3 88.8 85.8 87.3 87.2 85.9 -1.3

Hamilton Lake 87.0 87.3 87.9 87.5 78.9 82.2 85.1 86.9 84.2 82.3 -1.9

Hamilton Gardens 83 83 85 84 85.8 83.0 86.5 82.6 84.3 79.2 82.2 83.4 85.3 83.2 82.1 -1.1

City Walkways 80 81 78 75 81.5 74.4 75.5 75.9 75.7 75.3 79.7 77.8 80.4 75.5 77.4 1.9

Central City car parking 83 85 83 83 86.3 81.2 82.7 79.5 82.2 79.9 76.6 75.9 78.6 79.0 76.9 -2.1

Garden Place 82.7 77.5 77.2 75.5 77.2 74.9 -2.3

Neighbourhood Parks 53 60.6 77.0 70.8 65.5 63.0 66.1 64.3 69.0 68.4 68.5 68.2 -0.3

Refuse Transfer Station 58 61 62 61 61.5 62.5 57.1 61.1 63.1 58.2 63.1 64.7 60.4 65.4 66.3 0.9

City News 96 78 76 81 73.1 70.2 69.3 67.6 71.2 73.8 72.7 70.3 74.9 62.2 65.0 2.8

Hamilton's CBD at night 72.2 66.1 65.2 67.8 60.4 62.5 2.1

Any Library 73.6 70.6 70.2 74.1 65.4 70.4 61.2 -9.2

Claudelands Events Centre 64 61 59 65.3 58.9 66.2 56.1 54.4 57.6 61.6 50.5 50.1 48.7 57.7 9.0

Public Toilets 57 53 54 54 67.9 57.8 58.9 53.8 55.1 59.0 60.2 65.0 61.3 58.2 57.2 -1.0

Any Theatre 59.7 61.9 62.6 60.7 60.5 55.2 56.3 1.1

Community Library 31 55 54 58 61.5 60.2 58.7 53.3 56.1 51.8 52.8 59.3 50.4 55.5 50.7 -4.8

Garden Place (Central) Library 60 62 60 64 69.2 63.8 62.8 55.3 59.7 54.4 51.4 52.9 43.1 45.0 50.0 5.0

Hamilton City Council Website 10 11 16.9 19.5 22.9 26.7 30.1 30.0 40.7 33.6 48.0 40.3 49.3 9.0

7 These results are not based on a calendar year. Historically the survey timing has varied from year to year but generally is undertaken in the May – July and respondents were asked whether they had used each

service / facility in the past 12 months. Currently the survey is conducted quarterly and respondents were asked whether they had used each service / facility in the past 12 months.





Jul 11 – Jun 12


Jul 07 - Jun 08

Jul 08 - Jun 09

Jul 09 - Jun 10

Jul 10 – Jun 11

Jul 11 – Jun 12


Playground equipment 35 43 42 39 47.3 45.3 42.7 37.0 37.2 36.6 42.6 43.7 44.7 47.4 48.9 1.5

Waterworld 57 50 45 45 56.4 54.8 57.0 47.0 43.2 49.1 51.2 54.1 53.5 48.1 48.1

Hamilton Zoo 42 43 49 47 64.2 57.9 60.4 50.3 57.2 57.6 54.0 53.3 51.5 48.9 47.1 -1.8

Waikato Museum 57 46 46 44 58.3 54.3 54.0 43.3 42.4 41.8 49.8 46.2 50.8 45.4 45.6 0.2

Founders Theatre 63 50 53 57 70.2 56.9 59.6 54.4 51.7 55.3 54.2 50.6 48.5 42.4 43.3 0.9

City bus service 35.7 38.1 35.6 35.1 46.7 49.2 50.3 52.6 44.4 42.7 -1.7

Waikato Stadium 33 47.5 55.1 51.5 45.6 46.1 40.5 45.2 39.4 41.7 41.7 42.0 0.3

Council off-street car parking 28 23.2 48.6 49.4 47.8 47.5 49.3 46.9 42.0 46.5 43.4 40.6 -2.8

Hamilton Transport Centre 37 37 30 41 44.2 34.5 37.7 36.6 33.7 35.3 42.8 43.6 43.7 43.3 38.5 -4.8

Sports Areas 46 48 42 47 47.4 52.9 40.5 38.0 34.1 33.7 33.3 38.9 39.1 39.4 37.6 -1.8

Hamilton Park Cemetery 44 40 41 42 45.2 35.3 36.2 35.8 30.8 32.2 36.4 35.7 42.3 33.9 37.2 3.3


8.6 21.0 31.4 36.8 40.3 32.8 35.1 33.8 -1.3

Hamilton Organic Centre 45 46 49 45 46.3 40.8 40.9 38.9 38.9 30.8 33.8 32.5 29.5 32.2 32.9 0.7

ArtsPost 25 19 20 25 27.8 32.2 29.7 22.2 21.4 21.3 26.7 21.7 26.9 25.1 26.6 1.5

Dinsdale Library 26.1

Clarence Street Theatre 32 27 28 32 38.3 35.0 33.7 25.1 25.0 26.7 29.0 30.5 29.8 26.3 25.5 -0.8

Cycling facilities 20 19.2 24.5 23.1 21.9 22.9 22.3 26.1 31.5 22.9 25.4 2.5

Chartwell Library 25.4


38.6 34.2 37.0 25.0 -12.0

Visitor Information Centre 33.8 35.4 39.5 35.4 35.7 42.3 22.0 19.4 17.2 17.7 0.5

Porritt Stadium 19.2 23.8 19.9 21.6 20.6 20.0 17.1 20.5 19.0 17.5 -1.5

Gallagher Aquatic Centre 17 16 17 17 23 22.2 26.0 18.4 21.9 17.7 16.1 18.8 19.6 20.7 16.7 -4.0





Jul 11 – Jun 12


Jul 07 - Jun 08

Jul 08 - Jun 09

Jul 09 - Jun 10

Jul 10 – Jun 11

Jul 11 – Jun 12


Hillcrest Library 16.4

Seddon Park 31 30.6 27.4 23.1 12.1 16.3 14.7 23.3 18.6 21.6 16.7 16.3 -0.4

Dog Control Service 18 15 14 14 20.2 14.3 12.2 15.0 11.7 11.7 11.7 13.0 14.8 12.8 15.0 2.2

The Meteor 12 14 10 9 15.2 11.3 14.2 11.0 12.9 8.3 7.3 12.3 14.0 13.6 13.2 -0.4

Made a noise complaint 11.6 12.1 13.1 17.4 14.3 16.8 14.9 10.4 10.7 0.3

St Andrews Library 10.0

Glenview Library 9.9

Leisure Centre (YMCA) 10 12 10 13 16.3 15.8 16.1 12.3 11.2 13.1 12.6 12.9 16.4 12.6 9.4 -3.2

Summary table – Percentage who used other services in the past 12 months -1998 to March 2013 (Weighted data from 2004)


Jul 11 – Jun 12


Jul 07 - Jun 08

Jul 08 - Jun 09

Jul 09 - Jun 10

Jul 10 – Jun 11

Jul 11 – Jun 12


Council Staff 70.4 59.7 67.9 71.6 71.4 78.1 77.5 79.6 78.6 81.6 3.0

Contact Councillors or Mayor 16 17 17 18 23.2 15.7 21.4 16.0 15.1 19.4 19.4 16.7 20.9 23.7 22.8 -0.9

Involved in decision making 12.7 10.6 13.2 8.6 12.2 16.7 15.9 -0.8



Summary Usage Tables – Frequency of Usage by Facility

Summary table – Frequency of using each facility or service based on the percentage of the April 2012 – March 2013 sample

(Weighted data)

Facility / Service # of respondents Daily Weekly Monthly Yearly Not in past 12 months Don’t know Used at all

Kerbside Recycling 352 0.8 85.9 6.7 2.5 4.1 95.9

Pedestrian facilities 349 30.9 28.6 22.3 9.2 8.8 0.2 91.0

Parks and Gardens 349 6.2 28.5 23.4 27.8 13.5 0.6 85.9

Hamilton Lake 349 2.9 15.5 25.7 38.2 17.7 82.3

Hamilton Gardens 349 0.1 5.7 23.1 53.1 17.7 0.2 82.1

City Walkways 349 8.4 16.8 24.4 27.8 22.6 77.4

Central City car parking 349 6.2 22.0 31.1 17.7 22.8 0.2 76.9

Garden Place 349 3.2 14.7 22.3 34.7 25.1 74.9

Neighbourhood Parks 349 11.4 21.3 19.9 15.5 30.7 1.2 68.2

Refuse Transfer Station 352 2.1 13.3 50.9 33.4 0.3 66.3

City News 352 0.2 20.1 20.6 24.2 31.1 3.9 65.0

Hamilton's CBD at night 349 1.3 10.2 23.5 27.6 37.2 0.2 62.5

Any Library 352 0.6 14.0 25.1 21.5 38.7 0.2 61.2

Claudelands Events Centre 352 0.7 0.2 2.4 54.5 41.3 1.0 57.7

Public Toilets 352 0.2 8.5 13.1 35.5 41.0 1.8 57.2

Any Theatre 352 1.9 2.0 52.4 43.0 0.7 56.3

Community Library 352 0.4 11.8 20.9 17.6 49.2 0.2 50.7

Garden Place (Central) Library 286 0.7 6.0 11.3 31.9 49.1 0.9 50.0

Hamilton City Council Website 352 0.9 1.7 8.5 38.2 48.9 1.7 49.3

Playground equipment 349 4.9 15.9 14.9 13.2 49.7 1.4 48.9

Waterworld 352 0.6 4.4 8.5 34.6 51.1 0.7 48.1

Hamilton Zoo 352 0.2 1.3 45.6 52.8 0.2 47.1

Waikato Museum 352 5.4 40.2 54.3 0.2 45.6




(Weighted data)


Founders Theatre 352 0.2 0.9 42.3 55.6 1.1 43.3

City bus service 349 3.9 9.6 9.3 19.9 57.2 0.1 42.7

Waikato Stadium 352 5.8 36.3 56.6 1.4 42.0

Council off-street car parking 349 3.0 6.1 12.4 19.0 58.6 0.8 40.6

Hamilton Transport Centre 349 2.1 6.7 8.3 21.4 60.4 1.2 38.5

Sports Areas 349 1.3 11.8 8.6 15.9 61.1 1.3 37.6

Hamilton Park Cemetery 352 0.2 3.0 34.1 61.1 1.6 37.2

Multi-level car park in Knox Street 349 4.1 7.0 22.6 65.2 1.0 33.8

Hamilton Organic Centre 352 4.7 28.2 66.6 0.5 32.9

ArtsPost 352 0.3 4.4 21.9 72.1 1.3 26.6

Dinsdale Library 197 0.4 3.0 9.3 13.4 71.6 2.3 26.1

Clarence Street Theatre 352 1.1 1.3 23.1 73.5 1.0 25.5

Chartwell Library 197 5.7 10.6 9.1 73.6 1.0 25.4

Cycling facilities 349 3.7 5.4 7.4 8.9 73.9 0.7 25.4

Alexandra Street underground car park 349 0.3 2.5 4.3 17.8 73.6 1.4 25.0

Visitor Information Centre 352 0.2 0.9 1.8 14.7 80.6 1.8 17.7

Porritt Stadium 349 1.0 1.5 1.0 14.0 81.5 1.0 17.5

Gallagher Aquatic Centre 352 1.7 3.7 11.3 82.1 1.2 16.7

Hillcrest Library 197 2.9 3.8 9.7 81.8 1.8 16.4

Seddon Park 352 0.9 15.4 82.1 1.6 16.3

Dog Control Service 352 0.3 0.7 14.1 83.2 1.8 15.0

The Meteor 352 0.6 0.3 12.4 85.7 1.1 13.2

Made a noise complaint 352 1.4 9.4 87.6 1.7 10.7

St Andrews Library 197 2.6 2.7 4.7 88.4 1.6 10.0




(Weighted data)


Glenview Library 197 0.4 1.6 4.7 3.3 88.1 1.9 9.9

Leisure Centre (YMCA) 352 1.0 3.2 0.5 4.8 89.3 1.3 9.4

Summary table – Frequency of using other services based on the percentage of the April 2012 – March 2013 sample

(Weighted data)


Council Staff 701 1.8 19.7 30.4 29.6 18.0 0.5 81.6

Contact Councillors or Mayor 701 0.9 2.0 20.0 75.1 2.1 22.8

Involved in decision making 701 0.2 0.9 0.9 13.9 81.4 2.7 15.9



Summary Satisfaction Tables – Comparison to History

Satisfaction with Council provided facilities and services (CSI scores) – 2000 to March 2013

Facility / Service 2001 2002 2003 20048 2005 2006

Jul 06 - Jun 07

Jul 07 - Jun 08

Jul 08 - Jun 09

Jul 09 - Jun 10

Jul 10 - Jun11

Jul 11 – Jun12

Apr 12 – Mar 13

Difference to June 2012

Decreases Increases

Overall performance of Council 59.6 58.3 68.5 76.5 76.2 78.1 75.8 74.9 76.4 74.2 71.5 72.2 0.7

Elected Members 65 65.7 68.8 57.8 74.4 73.7 78.3 72.8 70.6 71.5 67.9 61.4 62.0 0.5

Council staff 79.6 81.1 72.9 78.7 79.5 79.9 79.6 79.8 81.7 81.5 81.8 81.0 -0.8



Continuity of Water Supply 81 81.5 84.1 80.4 85.4 83.9 88.4 86.2 87.5 88.5 89.5 90.1 89.9 -0.2

Hamilton Gardens 92 92.4 88.0 89.4 87.2 86.8 89.1 88.3 87.4 88.0 88.2 87.3 88.1 0.9


Household Refuse Collection 78 79.3 81.7 79.5 82.1 81.5 84.3 84.4 86.3 87.1 86.5 88.3 86.3 -2.0

Hamilton Park Cemetery 79 79.5 81.3 82.9 79.9 81.1 83.1 81.7 84.4 81.5 82.7 84.3 86.3 2.0

Garden Place Library overall 88 85.5 83.2 82.1 83.2 83.6 85.5 82.9 82.2 83.8 81.9 83.1 86.1 2.9

Hamilton Zoo 86 87.4 82.1 83.1 83.0 84.4 85.6 85.9 82.8 84.0 85.6 83.6 85.9 2.3

Kerbside Recyclable Collection 81.4 78.4 81.1 82.2 82.8 84.5 84.6 84.6 85.5 86.2 85.4 -0.8

Visitor Information Centre 76.6 83.5 78.2 77.4 78.2 78.6 84.6 83.7 86.7 84.3 -2.3

Clarity of the Water 75 73.5 69.2 70.0 78.0 76.2 80.8 82.1 81.9 84.9 85.3 82.4 84.2 1.7


8 Data weighting has been used since 2004 to correct the demographic imbalances in the random sample caused by certain subgroups opting out more frequently (e.g. younger respondents / men). While overall the

impact is small the use of data weighting does have a significant effect on a few services. Refer the methodology section for further explanation.





Jul 06 - Jun 07

Jul 07 - Jun 08

Jul 08 - Jun 09

Jul 09 - Jun 10

Jul 10 - Jun11

Jul 11 – Jun12

Apr 12 – Mar 13


Decreases Increases

Water Pressure 77 77.2 81.5 79.1 85.1 80.9 85.0 85.0 84.6 85.3 85.7 84.1 83.8 -0.3

Night patrol in the Central City 77.2 76.8 76.1 74.9 75.5 77.5 78.6 79.0 82.4 83.7 1.3

Hamilton as a place to live 81.6 82.8 81.6 83.8 82.3 83.0 82.4 83.2 83.4 83.6 0.2


Hamilton Organic Centre 83 83.8 80.5 78.2 82.8 79.8 81.8 82.1 84.5 82.6 82.8 79.2 83.1 3.9

Council's Graffiti clean up 71.5 72.5 78.2 78.4 79.9 83.0 3.1


Wastewater System 75 76.0 69.9 71.9 77.4 76.2 80.1 82.0 82.9 82.2 84.7 83.1 82.7 -0.4

The Hamilton City bus service 72.9 75.6 74.2 81.1 80.6 77.1 81.4 77.1 83.1 82.3 -0.8

Handling of noise complaint 80.6 78.8 79.6 79.4 80.5 74.1 81.4 70.4 82.1 11.8

Hamilton Lake 83.8 79.9 79.7 80.8 79.8 79.1 80.4 81.3 80.9 82.0 1.1

Refuse Transfer Station 81.4 78.6 78.7 79.6 81.7 81.8 81.8 80.6 81.9 1.4




City Walkways 83 81.5 80.0 81.4 80.8 79.6 80.9 81.6 78.6 78.7 79.2 80.7 81.0 0.3

Claudelands Events Centre 58 57.8 63.7 68.2 61.6 66.4 65.9 65.6 65.7 66.4 69.9 80.5 80.7 0.2

Hamilton Transport Centre 75 80.8 79.0 73.2 83.4 78.3 78.7 76.8 76.6 79.2 75.5 80.9 80.5 -0.4

Waikato Stadium 93.6 84.4 85.1 84.6 81.3 83.6 79.6 81.5 78.5 77.8 79.4 80.5 1.1

Outcome of noise complaint 76.5 80.4 76.8 75.8 76.5 70.8 73.9 69.8 80.4 10.6





Jul 06 - Jun 07

Jul 07 - Jun 08

Jul 08 - Jun 09

Jul 09 - Jun 10

Jul 10 - Jun11

Jul 11 – Jun12

Apr 12 – Mar 13


Decreases Increases


ArtsPost 81 78.4 77.3 79.2 73.9 68.4 75.1 74.3 78.6 80.1 79.4 76.9 80.0 3.1

Parks and Gardens in the City 82 83.7 78.8 83.7 74.7 79.2 79.8 81.0 79.0 78.9 77.9 78.1 79.8 1.7

Getting around in non peak traffic 73.6 79.0 76.7 80.6 81.7 80.8 80.7 79.7 -0.9

Multi-level car park in Knox Street 78.9 77.1 77.7 76.9 76.1 77.0 75.9 79.5 3.6

Waikato Museum 81 78.3 77.7 79.3 75.5 74.1 75.2 79.1 75.6 78.7 79.5 78.9 78.6 -0.3

City News 73 74.1 73.6 74.9 77.8 79.0 80.7 78.5 78.4 79.1 76.7 76.0 77.8 1.8

Street lighting in general 71 70.3 75.2 70.8 77.7 73.2 76.1 74.7 76.5 77.7 77.1 77.4 77.6 0.2

Taste and odour of the water 65 62.0 57.7 60.1 70.0 67.0 72.6 73.9 74.3 79.4 77.7 77.3 77.5 0.2

Gallagher Aquatic Centre 81 79.5 75.0 77.8 76.1 72.5 74.4 71.3 77.5 76.2 76.5 73.3 77.3 4.1

Seddon Park 85.3 74.6 78.2 69.4 69.1 75.3 77.0 78.1 78.3 77.3 76.1 77.3 1.2


Street lighting in your area 68 70.2 72.5 68.6 76.1 70.9 74.6 70.8 73.5 75.3 74.9 74.2 76.9 2.7

Leisure Centre (YMCA) 66 66.2 67.6 68.8 65.1 67.9 66.4 68.0 63.4 63.6 70.4 73.1 76.9 3.8

Dog Control Service 76 76.0 74.2 71.9 80.4 74.3 84.5 79.8 78.7 80.5 82.5 75.8 76.8 1.0

Pedestrian Facilities 73 69.8 69.3 68.3 76.9 71.6 73.3 72.2 74.9 77.3 76.3 75.3 76.8 1.5

Waterworld 80 79.5 76.8 75.4 74.8 72.5 73.9 76.3 78.4 77.8 76.2 77.2 76.8 -0.4

Streets where you live 73 73.5 73.1 70.2 76.7 72.5 76.2 73.2 76.2 75.3 76.5 75.5 76.3 0.8

Footpaths in general 70 69.4 72.3 71.0 76.6 73.9 75.6 74.6 75.5 77.1 76.5 76.1 76.2 0.2

Footpaths in your area 71 70.3 73.1 71.0 77.2 74.0 76.3 72.9 75.2 76.1 76.7 76.0 76.2 0.2





Jul 06 - Jun 07

Jul 07 - Jun 08

Jul 08 - Jun 09

Jul 09 - Jun 10

Jul 10 - Jun11

Jul 11 – Jun12

Apr 12 – Mar 13


Decreases Increases

Locations of crossings 70.9 74.6 71.9 75.4 77.1 75.6 75.8 75.9 0.1

Traffic Management 72 66.9 67.1 68.4 73.8 71.4 75.4 73.0 76.2 74.8 74.7 74.9 74.9

Sports Areas 71 76.0 73.8 78.0 69.2 71.5 69.3 72.1 70.7 70.9 71.4 73.9 74.7 0.8

Hamilton City Council Website 66 68.6 69.8 70.5 73.1 74.9 76.7 79.9 74.7 79.8 78.0 74.9 74.5 -0.4

City Beautification 78 76.5 74.6 76.4 76.8 74.5 78.6 78.1 76.6 73.5 74.1 76.9 74.3 -2.6

Founders Theatre 75 77.0 77.0 76.4 76.1 75.1 77.5 75.7 75.5 76.5 74.7 73.5 74.3 0.8

Pedestrian Safety 69.9 73.4 70.3 74.1 75.4 74.5 72.7 74.2 1.5

Stormwater System 67 67.5 65.9 68.0 72.2 70.0 75.8 76.8 74.7 77.7 76.5 73.9 73.9

Streets in general 71 72.5 72.3 67.8 74.6 70.0 72.8 70.8 73.5 73.4 73.7 72.4 73.8 1.4

Porritt Stadium 76.9 69.3 71.0 72.8 73.6 75.3 73.6 66.8 69.1 73.7 4.7

Clarence Street Theatre 75 72.7 72.0 72.4 70.8 67.9 71.9 71.8 70.4 72.2 72.5 70.6 72.4 1.8

Neighbourhood Park 70 70.8 70.4 77.1 70.4 70.2 72.1 72.2 70.3 71.5 69.6 70.2 72.4 2.2

Process for Council decision making 70.1 71.4 81.3 67.2 63.2 62.9 73.3 69.6 71.5 1.9


The outcome of submissions etc 68.0 66.9 73.5 69.7 60.6 58.1 71.2 69.7 69.9 0.2

Off-street car parking 65.7 67.6 59.3 65.7 62.0 67.1 64.6 67.5 66.6 69.7 70.4 69.8 -0.6

The Meteor 69 63.5 64.2 69.5 65.5 67.2 65.6 67.1 68.4 74.9 67.6 69.6 69.8 0.2

Playground equipment 76 74.7 73.1 77.1 66.0 69.0 71.8 68.5 62.2 68.8 68.3 67.1 68.7 1.6

Garden Place 71.4 68.6 71.1 63.8 65.4 68.3 2.9

Provision of information 65.6 66.6 72.0 70.3 71.8 71.4 66.7 68.6 68.0 66.4 68.0 1.5





Jul 06 - Jun 07

Jul 07 - Jun 08

Jul 08 - Jun 09

Jul 09 - Jun 10

Jul 10 - Jun11

Jul 11 – Jun12

Apr 12 – Mar 13


Decreases Increases

Public Toilets 61 63.2 62.5 64.3 66.1 66.8 68.3 66.8 68.5 69.6 70.3 72.8 67.8 -5.0

Cycling facilities 59 59.9 60.3 65.6 67.5 65.2 63.4 67.7 66.5 62.6 68.5 64.9 66.0 1.2

Central City car parking in general 57 56.3 63.2 56.2 59.1 59.7 62.9 57.6 63.9 58.8 63.9 62.4 63.5 1.1

Hamilton's CBD at night 63.3 63.1 66.9 67.2 65.0 63.3 -1.7

Involvement in Council decision making 58.5 59.8 67.2 66.9 66.3 65.4 60.5 62.8 59.9 61.1 61.6 0.6

Getting around in peak traffic 47.1 50.6 48.3 55.9 55.7 57.7 56.4 55.4 -1.0



Summary Tables – Other Indexes Comparison to History

History of other measured statements (Index9) – 2000 to March 2013


Jul 06 - Jun 07

Jul 07 - Jun 08

Jul 08 - Jun 09

Jul 09 - Jun 10

Jul 10 - Jun11

Jul 11 – Jun12

Apr 12 – Mar 13


Decreases Increases

Pride in Hamilton's look and feel 79.8

Safety in the neighbourhood you live in 78.0 80.6 76.8 78.2 77.7 79.5 79.3 79.7 79.7 79.3 -0.4

Noise pollution in neighbourhood 77.2 68.9 68.8 69.2 70.2 72.9 74.0 73.1 75.1 2.0

Quality improved or deteriorated 71.8 72.5 71.1 75.6 73.3 72.9 74.4 72.2 71.9 71.3 -0.6

Graffiti problem in neighbourhood 59.8 53.6 68.5 69.7 69.0 71.0 2.0

Value from residential rates 63.8 66.4 66.8 70.8 69.5 69.2 68.1 68.6 67.7 68.9 66.5 65.1 -1.5

Safety in CBD at night 62.8 65.6 61.6 57.0 56.7 61.4 63.3 63.6 62.4 63.2 0.8

9 The scales used vary by question e.g. Hamilton as a place to live is based on a satisfaction scale 0 = very dissatisfied to 10 = very satisfied; quality of life in Hamilton is based on the scale 0 = extremely poor to 10 =

extremely good; improvements use the scale 0 = much worse to 10 = much better; value from your residential rates uses the scale 0 = very poor to 10 = very good; safety uses the scale 0 = very unsafe to 10 = very safe and noise pollution uses the scale 0 = a big problem to 10 = not a problem. All these scales are converted to indexes out of 100.

10 Data weighting has been used since 2004 to correct the demographic imbalances in the random sample caused by certain subgroups opting out more frequently (e.g. younger respondents / men). While overall the

impact is small the use of data weighting does have a significant effect on a few services. Refer the methodology section for further explanation.



Summary Satisfaction Tables – Percentages across the Satisfaction Scale

Satisfaction with Council facilities and services – Percentage of respondents rating each question with scores from 0 to 10

Facility / Service

# of users /

# who rated

Using the scale where 0 is very dissatisfied to 10 being very satisfied, how satisfied are you with ….? % rating with a score of <?>

CSI score 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Don‟t Know

Overall performance of Council 701 0.8 0.4 0.7 1.3 2.5 7.7 12.9 22.5 28.4 7.9 9.7 5.2 72.2

Elected Members 701 2.2 1.5 2.9 5.3 5.3 12.7 15.0 16.8 14.3 6.5 6.1 11.4 62.0

Council staff 563 0.5 0.5 0.4 1.4 3.6 3.9 13.2 37.6 18.8 18.7 1.5 81.0

St Andrews Library overall 23 2.6 15.4 20.5 61.4 93.8

Opening hours Garden Place Library 99 0.9 2.5 2.1 0.6 22.3 18.2 44.0 9.4 89.9

Continuity of Water Supply 352 0.2 0.2 1.4 2.4 1.4 5.2 17.0 21.8 49.2 1.4 89.9

Hamilton Gardens 277 0.3 0.8 2.3 0.3 6.2 25.3 29.2 35.5 88.1

Hillcrest Library overall 34 6.4 2.2 31.0 21.2 39.3 87.6

Household Refuse Collection 352 0.5 0.2 0.8 0.7 2.0 1.3 9.2 27.2 21.6 35.3 1.2 86.3

Hamilton Park Cemetery 154 1.0 4.6 11.8 27.0 20.0 32.6 3.0 86.3

Garden Place Library overall 138 2.7 3.4 12.2 28.6 16.7 34.9 1.6 86.1

Hamilton Zoo 151 0.8 0.4 3.3 2.0 12.8 25.6 19.3 35.8 85.9

Kerbside Recyclable Collection 336 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.9 3.0 2.7 12.6 20.8 22.5 35.4 0.4 85.4

Visitor Information Centre 54 1.8 6.9 14.1 20.9 29.3 22.7 4.3 84.3

Clarity of the Water 352 0.9 0.7 1.0 0.9 2.3 5.8 10.3 21.0 21.3 34.1 1.8 84.2

Opening hours Glenview Library 23 3.0 18.3 42.6 4.2 32.0 84.1

Water Pressure 352 0.2 0.8 0.8 2.3 6.1 3.5 11.6 17.6 16.9 39.3 0.8 83.8

The cells highlighted in orange reflect the mode (most common score).




Facility / Service

# of users /

# who rated


CSI score 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Don‟t Know

Night patrol in the Central City 352 1.1 1.9 3.6 7.3 12.5 8.2 17.7 47.7 83.7

Hamilton as a place to live 701 0.1 0.2 0.7 1.2 2.7 4.3 12.9 28.5 22.9 26.3 0.2 83.6

Glenview Library overall 23 4.2 22.2 32.3 18.6 22.8 83.4

Hamilton Organic Centre 126 0.6 1.3 0.6 0.6 5.0 12.8 28.4 24.4 22.5 3.6 83.1

Council's Graffiti clean up 701 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.6 4.7 3.8 8.4 25.3 16.5 25.0 14.3 83.0

Opening hours Hillcrest Library 34 5.2 9.2 9.3 8.8 9.6 42.1 15.6 82.9

Wastewater System 352 0.6 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.2 2.0 4.5 8.0 21.7 17.0 26.0 17.0 82.7

The Hamilton City bus service 146 0.5 2.9 4.9 16.3 31.3 14.4 22.7 7.1 82.3

Handling of noise complaint 36 2.2 6.0 2.2 1.9 6.7 1.5 3.9 4.4 16.1 55.1 82.1

Hamilton Lake 284 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.7 4.7 5.9 13.7 28.6 19.7 25.1 0.4 82.0

Refuse Transfer Station 224 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.9 5.7 5.0 11.5 32.5 16.8 25.1 1.6 81.9

Opening hours St Andrews Library 23 8.8 11.1 4.1 2.8 10.0 8.8 43.5 10.9 81.8

Opening hours Chartwell Library 52 4.6 8.5 15.7 24.2 18.0 26.6 2.4 81.6

Chartwell Library overall 52 4.6 8.2 1.4 4.1 28.4 36.0 17.4 81.2

City Walkways 265 0.3 0.2 1.4 2.2 8.3 14.2 31.4 21.9 17.6 2.6 81.0

Claudelands Events Centre 192 0.3 1.0 1.9 4.2 7.4 16.9 20.4 27.4 20.2 0.3 80.7

Hamilton Transport Centre 136 0.5 0.7 0.4 3.5 7.6 13.1 34.0 17.1 18.2 4.9 80.5

Waikato Stadium 136 1.0 2.1 5.5 4.9 11.7 36.0 17.8 20.6 0.4 80.5

Outcome of noise complaint 36 2.2 4.1 2.2 1.9 13.1 6.1 1.4 18.2 48.3 2.5 80.4





Facility / Service

# of users /

# who rated


CSI score 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Don‟t Know

Dinsdale Library overall 51 4.4 10.2 1.4 12.1 31.2 7.9 32.8 80.1

ArtsPost 92 6.2 10.8 15.3 27.9 23.2 15.9 0.6 80.0

Parks and Gardens in the City 289 0.3 0.5 1.2 5.1 5.6 17.7 34.9 16.0 17.8 1.0 79.8

Getting around in non peak traffic 349 0.7 0.2 3.2 4.3 4.7 17.4 30.1 20.4 17.3 1.7 79.7

Multi-level car park in Knox Street 110 0.6 2.6 6.1 22.2 29.6 16.5 12.0 10.4 79.5

Waikato Museum 151 0.3 0.6 1.5 1.5 5.1 3.2 20.5 33.7 16.7 15.9 0.9 78.6

City News 229 0.9 0.2 10.6 7.3 13.5 34.8 13.6 15.2 3.9 77.8

Street lighting in general 349 0.4 1.3 0.4 1.6 4.8 7.9 19.3 28.6 17.3 14.0 4.4 77.6

Taste and odour of the water 352 1.1 0.6 1.4 1.4 5.9 3.9 7.5 12.7 19.5 16.8 25.2 4.0 77.5

Gallagher Aquatic Centre 53 1.4 6.6 12.6 15.6 36.5 10.4 15.5 1.4 77.3

Seddon Park 54 1.5 4.6 9.1 25.5 32.2 10.7 13.3 3.1 77.3

Opening hours Dinsdale Library 51 3.8 4.4 1.8 12.7 3.0 4.9 21.9 10.1 37.4 77.2

Street lighting in your area 349 0.5 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.6 6.5 8.6 13.6 22.4 22.4 17.1 2.8 76.9

Hamilton City Leisure Centre (YMCA) 26 6.1 9.3 13.0 9.8 25.7 15.7 20.5 76.9

Dog Control Service 49 3.6 2.8 5.8 4.6 3.2 14.7 21.6 13.1 29.4 1.3 76.8

Pedestrian Facilities 314 0.7 0.5 1.0 2.3 5.8 7.0 20.0 33.9 13.3 14.5 1.0 76.8

Waterworld 147 2.8 3.2 7.0 3.7 20.7 31.7 13.5 15.3 2.1 76.8

Streets where you live 349 0.6 1.3 1.4 2.4 3.9 7.7 19.4 35.5 17.0 10.6 0.2 76.3

Footpaths in general 349 0.1 0.6 1.0 1.0 2.0 6.2 7.7 19.6 32.4 16.4 11.8 1.3 76.2





Facility / Service

# of users /

# who rated


CSI score 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Don‟t Know

Footpaths in your area 349 1.1 1.7 2.4 1.2 4.9 9.3 17.1 28.1 17.8 14.9 1.4 76.2

Locations of crossings 314 0.2 0.2 1.4 2.5 6.9 8.1 19.3 33.4 13.6 11.7 2.7 75.9

Traffic Management 349 1.9 0.3 1.0 2.4 1.8 5.3 9.7 18.5 25.9 18.9 13.5 0.8 74.9

Sports Areas 110 0.5 0.5 8.8 7.9 33.0 26.0 11.7 8.2 3.3 74.7

Hamilton City Council Website 158 0.9 1.6 2.0 9.8 6.8 18.5 33.8 12.0 10.6 3.8 74.5

City Beautification 352 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.3 3.1 11.0 7.3 17.2 24.2 12.9 18.7 0.9 74.3

Founders Theatre 153 0.6 1.9 2.0 11.5 10.0 20.8 24.7 14.7 12.5 1.3 74.3

Pedestrian Safety 314 0.8 0.2 1.5 1.9 3.5 8.0 7.2 16.6 32.0 15.1 11.5 1.6 74.2

Stormwater System 352 1.7 0.6 0.9 1.9 2.8 9.1 7.9 14.2 23.2 11.7 17.0 9.0 73.9

Streets in general 349 0.4 1.0 1.0 2.6 7.3 7.2 28.0 31.4 12.8 7.3 0.9 73.8

Porritt Stadium 53 0.8 3.1 9.3 12.1 18.2 28.0 7.3 11.7 9.5 73.7

Clarence Street Theatre 86 0.7 1.6 4.1 11.5 19.4 13.7 21.9 14.6 12.5 72.4

Neighbourhood Park 223 0.4 2.6 0.2 3.5 10.7 9.2 21.2 31.7 8.4 10.7 1.4 72.4

Process for Council decision making 117 0.5 1.5 3.5 1.7 3.4 5.9 12.2 25.5 18.4 8.3 16.6 2.5 71.5

Alexandra Street underground car park 88 3.1 1.9 1.2 2.2 7.1 8.1 29.7 26.2 3.4 11.2 5.8 70.5

The outcome of submissions etc 117 2.1 0.7 4.1 2.7 4.2 8.3 6.2 19.3 19.4 5.8 18.1 9.0 69.9

The Meteor 43 1.8 4.6 12.5 13.0 34.9 13.9 4.2 13.8 1.2 69.8

Off-street car parking 122 1.5 0.5 3.2 1.7 10.3 6.9 28.7 25.6 6.5 5.5 9.6 69.8





Facility / Service

# of users /

# who rated


CSI score 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Don‟t Know

Playground equipment 149 1.3 0.9 3.5 2.4 6.5 13.0 4.3 18.5 27.1 10.6 10.2 1.6 68.7

Garden Place in Central Hamilton 249 0.6 1.8 0.6 2.2 4.6 14.0 18.1 16.4 16.4 14.4 8.2 2.8 68.3

Provision of information 701 1.4 0.5 1.2 3.6 4.7 13.4 10.0 18.6 18.7 9.8 9.2 8.9 68.0

Public Toilets 195 2.3 2.0 0.4 10.3 11.6 9.0 24.1 21.3 8.9 9.7 0.4 67.8

Cycling facilities 78 2.5 1.0 5.9 8.2 7.7 9.4 20.7 19.6 12.1 7.1 5.7 66.0

Central City car parking in general 253 1.4 1.1 3.0 1.7 7.2 16.8 14.9 20.0 18.3 5.5 5.6 4.5 63.5

Hamilton's CBD at night 197 0.2 2.5 3.9 1.2 4.9 18.1 16.8 18.9 19.5 6.5 3.8 3.6 63.3

Involvement in Council decision making 701 2.5 1.3 3.5 4.6 4.9 15.6 10.1 13.9 15.0 6.4 6.3 15.9 61.6

Getting around in peak traffic 349 2.5 4.0 3.5 7.6 8.2 19.1 16.1 16.5 10.0 4.4 3.3 4.6 55.4




Summary Satisfaction Tables – Percentages across the other Index Scales

Ratings for other questions using an 11 point scale –Percentage of respondents rating each question with scores from 0 to 10

Facility / Service

# of users /

# who rated


Index 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Don‟t Know

Pride in Hamilton's look and feel 350 0.4 1.1 2.9 7.5 5.8 14.1 27.3 13.8 25.8 1.2 79.8

Safety in the neighbourhood you live in 701 0.6 0.1 1.1 1.9 2.2 4.8 6.9 13.2 26.6 19.7 22.5 0.4 79.3

Noise pollution in neighbourhood 701 2.8 1.2 4.1 2.9 4.3 7.2 5.7 8.4 15.9 14.8 32.5 0.3 75.1

Quality improved or deteriorated 701 0.6 0.8 0.5 3.6 14.1 10.6 20.8 27.4 6.6 10.6 4.3 71.3

Graffiti problem in neighbourhood 701 7.1 1.9 1.6 4.5 4.4 9.6 4.1 7.6 13.1 13.9 30.7 1.5 71.0

Value from residential rates 535 2.1 0.6 2.4 4.3 5.8 9.6 12.7 27.7 21.2 6.3 4.9 2.3 65.1

Safety in Central City area at night 701 2.1 1.0 3.1 4.0 6.5 8.0 11.2 18.4 16.6 6.5 4.4 18.2 63.2




Summary Satisfaction Tables – Percentage who are satisfied (Scores 7 to 10)

Summary table – Percentage who are satisfied

% of the sample who are satisfied (scores 7 - 10) 11 % of those who rated who are satisfied (scores 7 - 10) 12

Change from

Jul 11 – Jun 12

Facility / Service Jul 07 - Jun 08

Jul 08 - Jun 09

Jul 09 - Jun 10

Jul 10 – Jun 11

Jul 11 – Jun 12

Jan 12 – Dec 12

Jul 07 - Jun 08

Jul 08 - Jun 09

Jul 09 - Jun 10

Jul 10 – Jun 11

Jul 11 – Jun 12



74.2 75.1 80.4 76.2 69.5 68.5 80.6 81.9 85.6 81.0 73.3 72.3 -1.1

Elected Members 61.7 58.9 56.9 54.6 43.1 43.7 76.4 72.6 71.5 66.1 49.1 49.3 0.2

Council staff 86.0 86.5 90.5 88.9 89.6 88.2 87.8 87.6 92.2 89.6 91.0 89.6 -1.4

St Andrews Library overall 97.4 97.4

Opening hours Glenview Library

97.0 97.0

Hamilton Gardens 94.0 94.1 94.3 97.2 96.1 96.3 95.5 96.1 94.6 97.3 96.1 96.3 0.2

Glenview Library overall 95.8 95.8

Household Refuse Collection 86.2 90.7 91.9 91.6 95.4 93.2 88.0 93.3 94.4 93.3 97.4 94.4 -3.0

Continuity of Water Supply 89.3 89.2 91.5 93.3 97.0 93.2 91.0 92.3 93.8 95.3 98.3 94.3 -3.9

Hamilton Park Cemetery 85.5 90.8 87.6 88.6 87.5 91.4 86.4 94.1 89.1 90.6 89.7 94.2 4.6

Opening hours Garden Place Library

85.1 93.9

Garden Place Library overall 91.2 93.1 88.6 85.4 89.7 92.3 92.5 93.0 89.2 87.8 90.1 93.8 3.7

Hamilton Zoo 92.3 88.7 90.8 93.9 91.7 93.5 94.4 89.2 90.9 94.2 92.1 93.5 1.4


87.5 87.8 89.6 88.0 93.5 91.3 87.9 88.8 90.1 88.5 94.3 91.8 -2.5

Hamilton Organic Centre 82.6 91.8 87.0 93.0 82.8 88.2 87.1 94.6 89.1 94.3 86.4 91.6 5.1

11 The percentage of the sample who are satisfied is the percentage of respondents who rated that factor with a score of 7 or greater based on the 11 point satisfaction scale (0 = very dissatisfied to 10 = very satisfied)

as a percentage of all respondents who were asked that question (e.g. only users for some specific facilities or services or the whole sample for general questions).

12 The percentage of those who rated who are satisfied is the percentage of respondents who rated that factor with a score of 7 or greater based on the 11 point satisfaction scale (0 = very dissatisfied to 10 = very

satisfied) as a percentage of all respondents who gave a rating for that question (e.g. non users, don‟t knows and no answers are excluded from the calculation).





Change from

Jul 11 – Jun 12


Jul 08 - Jun 09

Jul 09 - Jun 10

Jul 10 – Jun 11

Jul 11 – Jun 12

Jan 12 – Dec 12

Jul 07 - Jun 08

Jul 08 - Jun 09

Jul 09 - Jun 10

Jul 10 – Jun 11

Jul 11 – Jun 12


Hillcrest Library overall 91.4 91.4

The Hamilton City bus service 79.0 78.7 84.7 76.3 83.9 84.6 86.7 80.6 89.3 80.7 90.6 91.1 0.5

Visitor Information Centre 72.7 76.4 86.4 87.0 87.6 86.9 82.8 85.0 97.0 90.6 92.2 90.9 -1.3

Hamilton as a place to live 89.1 91.1 89.8 91.6 91.6 90.7 89.2 91.4 90.5 91.7 91.6 90.8 -0.8


74.9 75.1 75.2 80.2 77.8 80.3 81.0 79.6 79.4 82.1 83.5 89.6 6.1

Clarity of the Water 83.3 83.7 91.0 89.3 85.9 86.6 87.0 85.3 93.1 91.5 87.7 88.2 0.5

Council's Graffiti clean up 51.9 55.2 65.1 67.8 70.1 75.2 67.8 73.2 79.4 81.4 83.4 87.9 4.5

Waikato Museum 83.0 77.6 80.2 80.9 81.9 86.9 87.4 78.5 82.8 82.3 84.7 87.7 3.0

Wastewater System 66.2 72.1 73.0 79.2 78.9 72.7 87.6 90.4 89.4 91.7 90.4 87.6 -2.8

Night patrol in the Central City 35.8 41.6 45.2 43.7 47.3 45.8 74.1 80.3 84.0 82.9 86.6 87.4 0.8

Hamilton Lake 82.5 84.0 84.6 85.4 86.4 87.0 82.6 85.2 85.2 86.1 86.7 87.4 0.7

City Walkways 87.0 81.2 85.8 85.0 92.1 85.1 88.5 82.9 87.6 85.3 92.1 87.3 -4.8

Refuse Transfer Station 77.8 87.2 86.4 83.7 86.3 85.8 82.2 89.9 90.3 87.7 88.3 87.2 -1.1

Parks and Gardens in the City 87.2 83.1 83.5 81.0 86.4 86.3 87.3 85.7 84.8 81.7 86.7 87.2 0.5


78.1 82.2 87.8 88.4 87.7 85.1 80.5 87.1 90.0 90.2 89.5 86.7 -2.8

Hamilton Transport Centre 70.5 73.9 82.6 71.3 83.1 82.5 79.5 82.0 86.9 77.8 89.6 86.6 -3.0

Opening hours Chartwell Library

84.5 86.6

Waikato Stadium 84.5 90.8 82.4 82.6 86.4 86.1 86.3 91.6 84.9 84.3 87.1 86.4 -0.7









Change from

Jul 11 – Jun 12


Jul 08 - Jun 09

Jul 09 - Jun 10

Jul 10 – Jun 11

Jul 11 – Jun 12

Jan 12 – Dec 12

Jul 07 - Jun 08

Jul 08 - Jun 09

Jul 09 - Jun 10

Jul 10 – Jun 11

Jul 11 – Jun 12


Water Pressure 86.8 86.6 86.5 86.5 87.7 85.5 88.9 88.2 88.4 88.4 88.6 86.2 -2.4

Chartwell Library overall 85.8 85.8

Claudelands Events Centre 55.2 50.2 50.3 58.4 80.8 84.9 56.6 51.3 52.6 62.5 83.5 85.2 1.7

Seddon Park 82.3 73.3 79.7 83.0 82.4 81.7 82.3 74.0 82.4 86.4 86.6 84.3 -2.3

Dinsdale Library overall 84.0 84.0

Waterworld 75.6 80.6 82.3 75.5 81.0 81.2 78.2 83.1 83.6 75.8 81.7 82.9 1.2

Opening hours Hillcrest Library

69.9 82.9

ArtsPost 67.4 76.8 78.3 78.8 76.6 82.4 70.9 79.2 79.8 80.9 80.9 82.9 2.0

Street lighting in general 70.8 74.1 77.7 78.2 80.2 79.2 75.6 79.6 81.5 80.4 83.5 82.8 -0.6

Streets where you live 75.6 79.2 79.0 80.4 79.8 82.5 75.7 79.5 79.2 81.0 80.1 82.7 2.5

Pedestrian Facilities 72.5 75.9 83.6 76.3 80.4 81.7 73.4 77.5 85.0 77.5 81.0 82.5 1.5

Sports Areas 68.3 68.5 60.7 68.8 77.6 78.9 74.9 70.8 63.0 70.3 79.3 81.7 2.3

Footpaths in general 77.2 77.9 80.2 82.0 78.2 80.2 79.5 80.0 82.8 83.9 79.7 81.2 1.5

Streets in general 67.5 75.7 74.9 77.0 73.8 79.6 68.8 77.3 76.2 77.2 74.9 80.3 5.4

City News 81.5 82.7 80.7 78.1 78.5 77.1 84.4 85.6 85.3 80.4 80.3 80.2 -0.1

Locations of crossings 69.8 76.8 80.2 76.7 77.9 77.9 71.5 79.1 81.9 77.9 79.9 80.2 0.3

Dog Control Service 72.3 70.4 88.9 87.4 65.8 78.7 78.8 78.6 88.8 89.8 66.7 79.8 13.0

Handling of noise complaint 75.5 82.6 68.9 80.1 65.3 79.5 81.0 84.3 70.9 82.8 67.1 79.5 12.4









Change from

Jul 11 – Jun 12


Jul 08 - Jun 09

Jul 09 - Jun 10

Jul 10 – Jun 11

Jul 11 – Jun 12

Jan 12 – Dec 12

Jul 07 - Jun 08

Jul 08 - Jun 09

Jul 09 - Jun 10

Jul 10 – Jun 11

Jul 11 – Jun 12


Gallagher Aquatic Centre 64.1 82.9 77.0 80.0 66.5 78.0 66.1 84.9 79.3 83.0 69.3 79.1 9.8

Footpaths in your area 72.6 74.4 77.9 77.1 76.9 77.9 73.1 76.7 79.1 78.8 77.8 79.1 1.3

Hamilton City Council Website 78.9 75.4 84.4 84.5 75.7 75.0 86.8 80.7 87.6 88.7 77.8 78.0 0.2

Street lighting in your area 69.0 70.0 74.4 73.8 73.5 75.6 69.6 71.9 75.3 75.5 74.5 77.8 3.2

Traffic Management 72.6 79.1 77.9 78.1 77.2 76.8 72.9 80.4 78.8 79.0 78.1 77.4 -0.7

Taste and odour of the water 67.2 70.8 79.0 75.9 74.6 74.2 71.2 73.9 82.8 77.9 77.9 77.3 -0.6

Pedestrian Safety 64.4 71.1 77.7 75.9 71.7 75.2 65.8 72.6 78.9 76.5 72.4 76.5 4.1

Outcome of noise complaint 73.6 73.9 64.5 75.8 64.9 73.9 77.3 74.8 66.3 75.9 67.0 75.9 8.9


55.0 60.0 66.0 70.5 57.2 64.0 69.8 74.9 5.2

Opening hours Dinsdale Library

74.3 74.3

City Beautification 82.2 76.9 73.7 74.1 78.9 73.0 83.3 78.5 76.1 74.1 79.4 73.8 -5.6

Founders Theatre 75.8 76.5 80.7 72.6 75.2 72.7 77.2 77.0 80.7 72.7 75.6 73.7 -1.9

Off-street car parking 53.3 58.2 50.7 61.1 66.2 66.4 58.1 65.6 53.7 66.8 71.3 73.3 2.0

Opening hours St Andrews Library

65.1 73.1

Neighbourhood Park 64.7 63.8 66.1 63.7 66.6 72.0 66.9 64.6 67.6 65.5 66.7 73.0 6.4

Stormwater System 68.1 66.8 69.3 72.5 70.6 66.1 79.0 74.8 81.0 79.4 76.0 72.6 -3.4

Porritt Stadium 58.4 68.9 64.5 53.6 53.7 65.2 67.7 79.1 76.1 58.3 63.9 72.0 8.1









Change from

Jul 11 – Jun 12


Jul 08 - Jun 09

Jul 09 - Jun 10

Jul 10 – Jun 11

Jul 11 – Jun 12

Jan 12 – Dec 12

Jul 07 - Jun 08

Jul 08 - Jun 09

Jul 09 - Jun 10

Jul 10 – Jun 11

Jul 11 – Jun 12


Hamilton City Leisure Centre (YMCA)

63.1 52.1 46.6 53.2 70.9 71.6 63.9 53.8 50.1 59.1 75.5 71.6 -3.9

Process for Council decision making

52.2 57.9 44.2 62.9 65.5 68.9 58.9 61.6 48.6 64.8 67.9 70.6 2.6

The outcome of submissions etc

55.3 45.6 39.7 57.5 56.0 62.7 64.6 53.8 44.8 68.1 65.6 68.9 3.3

The Meteor 62.7 55.9 79.0 59.4 55.8 66.9 69.4 63.6 83.1 62.5 59.4 67.7 8.3

Playground equipment 52.4 51.3 57.8 59.3 59.0 66.5 54.7 52.8 60.1 60.2 60.3 67.5 7.2

Public Toilets 57.8 64.5 65.8 67.7 72.4 64.1 60.5 65.3 67.5 68.7 72.6 64.3 -8.4

Cycling facilities 55.1 57.2 46.9 59.4 54.0 59.5 61.2 59.0 48.2 62.5 58.6 63.2 4.6

Clarence Street Theatre 67.6 56.6 68.6 73.6 66.3 62.7 70.2 60.4 72.6 74.7 67.8 62.7 -5.1

Provision of information 65.8 54.2 57.3 58.3 55.1 56.2 71.0 61.0 64.7 64.8 60.0 61.8 1.8

Garden Place in Central Hamilton

63.0 61.6 65.3 52.8 48.6 55.4 65.7 63.2 65.9 53.8 51.1 56.9 5.8


40.2 53.0 38.9 49.4 51.7 49.4 41.9 55.6 40.0 51.6 53.0 51.7 -1.2

Hamilton's CBD at night 45.1 45.8 63.1 57.7 55.8 48.7 52.3 48.7 64.7 58.6 57.1 50.6 -6.5

Involvement in Council decision making

47.1 39.0 42.6 38.9 40.3 41.6 58.8 49.9 53.3 49.6 50.4 49.5 -1.0

Getting around in peak traffic 24.7 33.7 34.0 36.1 34.6 34.3 26.2 36.5 35.8 38.3 37.3 35.9 -1.4





hamilton city council residents survey report · the latest quarter‟s csi score of 73.8 is 0.9...

Documents