report - coffs harbour - community research - july 2020...1 1 $ vljqlilfdqwo\ kljkhu orzhu ohyho ri...

$: Report - Coffs Harbour - Community Research - July 2020...1 1 $ VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU ORZHU OHYHO RI VDWLVIDFWLRQ E\ JURXS FRPSDUHG WR 6FDOH QRW DW DOO VDWLVILHG YHU\ VDWLVILHG 5HDVRQV$
Coffs Harbour City Council

Prepared by: Micromex Research Date: May 2020

Customer Satisfaction Research

Table of ContentsBackground and Methodology 3

Sample Profile 7

Key Findings 9

Detailed Results 17

Performance of Council 18

Summary of Council Services and Facilities 22

Comparison to Micromex Benchmarks 33

Priority Issues 38

Living in the Coffs Harbour LGA 41

Contact and Communication 44

Importance of and Satisfaction with Council’s Services and Facilities 54

Appendix A: Additional Analyses 82

Appendix B: Further Demographics 101

Appendix C: Questionnaire 103

Background & Methodology

4

Background & Methodology

Why?

• Understand and identify community priorities for the Coffs Harbour City Council LGA

• Identify the community’s overall level of satisfaction with Council performance

• Assess and establish the community’s priorities and satisfaction in relation to Council activities, services, andfacilities

• Compare results to the Micromex Community Benchmarks (using normative data from over 35 regional LGA,since 2014)

• Explore and understand resident experiences contacting Council

How?

• Micromex Research, together with Coffs Harbour City Council developed the questionnaire. A previous surveyinstrument used in 2012-2018 was re-visited and updated in 2020. Though the structure of the survey remainedsimilar to previous years, some data was not directly comparable.

• Telephone survey (landline and mobile) to N=504 households

• We use a 5 point scale (e.g. 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfied)

• Greatest margin of error +/- 4.4%

When?

• Implementation 27th April – 2nd May 2020

5

Background & MethodologySample selection and error

A total of 504 resident interviews were completed. Respondents were selected by means of a computer based random selection process usingthe electronic White Pages and SamplePages.

A sample size of 504 residents provides a maximum sampling error of plus or minus 4.4% at 95% confidence. This means that if the survey wasreplicated with a new universe of N=504 residents, 19 times out of 20 we would expect to see the same results, i.e. +/- 4.4%.

For the survey under discussion the greatest margin of error is 4.4%. This means, for example, that an answer such as ‘yes’ (50%) to a questioncould vary from 45.6% to 54.4%.

The sample was weighted by age and gender to reflect the 2016 ABS Census data for Coffs Harbour City Council LGA .

Interviewing

Interviewing was conducted in accordance with the AMSRS (Australian Market and Social Research Society) Code of Professional Behaviour. The survey was conducted during the period 27th April – 2nd May 2020 between 4:00pm and 8:30pm Monday to Friday, and between 10am and 4pm on Saturdays. Where phones were not answered e.g. diverted to answering machines or engaged, interviewers called up to 3 times throughout the duration of the project to ensure a sample size of 504 was achieved.Approximately 275 hours were spent interviewing, with each survey averaging 15.75 minutes.

Prequalification

Participants in this survey were pre-qualified as being over the age of 18, and not working for, nor having an immediate family member workingfor Coffs Harbour City Council.

Data analysis

The data within this report was analysed using Q Professional.

Within the report, ▲▼ and blue and red font colours are used to identify statistically significant differences between groups, i.e., gender, age,ratepayer status, length of time lived in the LGA and residential location .

Significance difference testing is a statistical test performed to evaluate the difference between two measurements. To identify the statisticallysignificant differences between the groups of means, ‘One-Way Anova tests’ and ‘Independent Samples T-tests’ were used. ‘Z Tests’ were alsoused to determine statistically significant differences between column percentages.

6

Background & MethodologyRatings questions

The Unipolar Scale of 1 to 5 was used in all rating questions, where 1 was the lowest importance or satisfaction and 5 the highest importance orsatisfaction.

This scale allowed us to identify different levels of importance and satisfaction across respondents.

Top 2 (T2) Box: refers to the aggregate percentage (%) score of the top two scores for importance. (i.e. important & very important)

Top 3 (T3) Box: refers to the aggregate percentage (%) score of the top three scores for satisfaction or support. (i.e. somewhat satisfied, satisfied &very satisfied)

We refer to T3 Box Satisfaction in order to express moderate to high levels of satisfaction in a non-discretionary category. We only report T2 BoxImportance in order to provide differentiation and allow us to demonstrate the hierarchy of community priorities.

Percentages

All percentages are calculated to the nearest whole number and therefore the total may not exactly equal 100%.

Micromex LGA Benchmark

Micromex has developed Community Satisfaction Benchmarks using normative data from over 60 unique councils, more than 120 surveys andover 68,000 interviews since 2012.

Please note: The Micromex Benchmark satisfaction norms are based on surveys where only those rating importance as 4 or higher were asked torate their satisfaction. Coffs Harbour City Council LGA residents were all asked to rate satisfaction, regardless of importance score and thereforethe applicable tables in this report should be considered as a point of interest only.

Word Frequency Tagging

Verbatim responses for ‘open ended’ questions were collated and entered into analytical software. This analysis ‘counts’ the number of times aparticular word or phrase appears and, based on the frequency of that word or phrase, a font size is generated. The larger the font, the morefrequently the word or sentiment is mentioned.

Sample Profile

8

The sample was weighted by age and gender to reflect the 2016 ABS community profile of Coffs Harbour City Council.

Sample Profile

Gender

Female 52% Male 48 %

23% 23%27% 27%

18-34 35-49 50-64 65+

Age

Ratepayer status

Ratepayer 78%

Non-ratepayer 22%

Time lived in the area

2% 4% 9%

29%

56%

Up to 2years

2-5 years 5-10 years 10-20years

Morethan 20years

Location type

75%

18%

7%

Urban Rural Mixed/unsure

N=504 Telephone Interviews with Coffs Harbour City Council

LGA residents

*None of the above <1%

Key Findings

10

Key Findings - Summary

82%

of Coffs Harbour LGA residents were at least

somewhat satisfied with the performance of Council in

the last 12 months

Top Drivers of Overall Satisfaction

Highest Priority IssuesMost Valued Aspects of the area

79% of residents were at least somewhat satisfied with the

level of communication Council currently has with the

community

Waste and recycling

Enforcement of local building regulations

Economic Development

Natural environment/beauty

Lifestyle/atmosphere

Central location

Weather and climate

Maintaining/improving roads

General town maintenance

Completion of bypass

Council’s level of communication with the

community

11

Key Opportunity Areas

Consultation, communication and engagement with the Community

Satisfaction with Council’s communication was included in the regression analysis to highlight the importance ofcommunity engagement and consultation.

• ‘Council’s level of communication with the community’ was the strongest driver of overall satisfaction,contributing to almost 40%.

• Issues relating to communication were common reasons for residents being either not at all, or not very satisfiedwith the performance of Council.

12


Cleanliness and Appearance of the Area

Waste collection, cleanliness and appearance of the local area became a common theme throughout theresearch.

• ‘Waste and recycling’ was the second strongest driver of overall satisfaction, contributing to over 10%.

• Residents placed significantly higher levels of importance (than benchmark norms) on ‘cleanliness of streets’.

• When asked about the top priority issues for the area, 17% of residents suggested ‘general town maintenanceincluding updated infrastructure, development and cleanliness in the area’ as the biggest priority.

• In terms of what council could do in order to better assist the community over the coming months of COVID-19,the suggestion to ‘keep waste services open/increase garbage collection during this time’ was the secondhighest response (10%).

• ‘Waste and recycling’ was the highest rated service/facility in terms of importance, and demonstrated thelargest gap in performance (between importance and satisfaction).

13


Economic Development and Tourism in the Area

Encouraging people to the area, as well as economic growth in the area were frequently mentioned

‘Economic development’ was the service/facility with the second largest gap in performance (betweenimportance and satisfaction)

Both ‘Economic development’ and ‘tourism marketing’ were 2 of the 10 strongest drivers of overallsatisfaction.

‘Economic Development’ was also among the 5 lowest rated services/facilities in terms of satisfaction.

When compared to previous research, level of importance increased significantly for both ‘economicdevelopment’ and ‘tourism marketing’.

14


The Local Road Network

Although satisfaction scores are above regional benchmark norms, the local road network is an area of concernfor Coffs Harbour LGA residents.

• ‘Maintaining/improving roads’ was the top suggestion when asked about the highest priority issues for the next10 years.

• ‘Maintenance of sealed roads’ was one of the top 5 measures with the largest performance gaps.

• Both ‘maintenance of unsealed roads’ and ‘maintenance of sealed roads’ were among the 5 lowest ratedservices/facilities in terms of satisfaction.

• ‘Maintenance of unsealed roads’ was one of the top 10 drivers of overall satisfaction.

15


• Council’s communication and engagement is critical in shaping the community’s perceptions of Council performance. Greater investment in this area will consolidate/strengthen overall satisfaction.

• Understand needs in relation to cleanliness in the area, and continue to provide adequate waste services to the community

• Continue to focus on economic growth in the area, including the promotion of tourism.

• With the local paper moving online council should look to audit current communication and engagement methods and develop a revised media strategy to upweight community awareness and engagement

• Work with the community to understand and explore expectation with regard to the local road network

Recommendations

16

Unique Differences

As a point of interest, compared to our benchmarks we have identified unique aspects of CoffsHarbour City Council compared to other Regional councils, these include:

• Coffs Harbour LGA residents place a higher level of importance on cleanliness and appearance in their area, with ‘cleanliness of streets’, ‘protection of the natural

environment’ and ‘parks, reserves and playgrounds’ demonstrating higher importance scores than the benchmark norms.

• The following Community facilities also demonstrated significantly higher importance scores than our Regional Benchmark norms:

- Community facilities- Parks, reserves and playgrounds

- Sporting facilities- Creation or attraction of cultural and sporting events

• Residents also appeared to be more satisfied with infrastructure, for example ‘maintenance of sealed roads’, ‘maintenance of unsealed roads’, ‘footpaths and

cycleways’, ‘maintenance of public toilets’ and ‘sewerage’ all demonstrated higher satisfaction scores than our regional benchmark norms.

Detailed Results

Perfo

rma

nce

of C

oun

cil

Detailed Results

1. Performance of Council

2. Summary of Council Services &

Facilities

3. Comparison to Micromex

Benchmarks

4. Priority Issues

5. Living in the Coffs Harbour LGA

6. Contact and Communication

7. Importance of, and Satisfaction

with, Council Services & Facilities

19

Overview – Overall Satisfaction

82% of Coffs Harbour LGA residents are at least somewhat satisfied with the performance of Council, on par with the Micromex Regional Benchmark norm. The mean rating for satisfaction

is the highest reported across the 6 year reporting period.

Q5a. Overall, how satisfied are you with the performance of Council, not just on one or two issues, but across all responsibility areas?

T3B Satisfaction Scores

11%

40%

31%

14%

4%

8%

39%

36%

12%

5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Very satisfied (5)

Satisfied (4)

Somewhat satisfied (3)

Not very satisfied (2)

Not at all satisfied (1)

Coffs Harbour City Council (N=504)

Micromex LGA Benchmark - Regional (N=31,907)

Coffs Harbour City

Council

Micromex LGA Benchmark -

Regional

Mean rating 3.38 3.34

T3 Box 82% 83%

Base 504 31,907

Scale: 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfied

Mean ratings 3.38 3.29 3.23 3.36

82% 86% 83% 88%

2020 2018 2016 2014

20

Overall Satisfaction

The proportion of residents committing to the top box (very satisfied) has increased significantly since 2018. The 18-34 group demonstrated the highest levels of satisfaction across age groups, and those that have lived in the area for 10 years or less were significantly more

satisfied than residents that have lived in the area for over 10 years.


Overall 2020

Overall 2018

Male Female 18–34 35–49 50–64 65+

Mean rating 3.38 3.29 3.40 3.36 3.59 3.37 3.27 3.31

Base 504 506 241 263 115 114 138 136

Ratepayer status Time lived in the area Location type

Ratepayer Non-ratepayer Up to 10 yearsMore than 10

yearsUrban Rural

Mean rating 3.35 3.49 3.62▲ 3.34 3.38 3.32

Base 392 107 72 430 376 93

11%▲

40%

31%▼

14%

4%

6%

34%

46%

11%

3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Very satisfied (5)

Satisfied (4)




2020 (N=504) 2018 (N=506)▲▼ = A significantly higher/lower level of satisfaction (by group/compared to 2018) Scale: 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfied

21

Reasons for Level of Overall Satisfaction

For those that stated they were satisfied or very satisfied with Council’s performance, general statements of happiness with Council and the job they do (25%), was the dominant reason for

giving this rating. For those that are either not at all or not very satisfied, the most common reason was ‘unhappy with Council e.g. management, communication and budgeting’ (17%).


Q5b. What is your main reason for giving this score?

Very satisfied/Satisfied (51%) N=504

Happy with Council/they do a good job e.g. communication, management 25%

Council can always improve e.g. management, communications, infrastructure, events 19%

Good services & facilities/visible improvements in the area 7%

Against development of the Cultural Centre 4%

Area is clean/well maintained 2%

Don't know/nothing 2%

Somewhat Satisfied (31%)

Room for improvements e.g. development, cleanliness of the area, bringing back kerbside collections 14%

Poor decision making and planning/communication/consultation from Council 13%

Against developments, particularly the Cultural Centre 6%

Council do a good job/good services/facilities in the area 4%

Better financial management for Council 2%

Not all Satisfied/Not Very Satisfied (18%)

Unhappy with Council e.g. management, communication and budgeting 17%

Against the development of the Cultural Centre 4%

Need for increased town maintenance/facilities e.g. pools, roads, footpaths 4%

Rates are too high/lower the rates 2%

Please see Appendix A for full list of responses

Sum

ma

ry o

f Co

unc

il Se

rvic

es

& F

ac

ilitie

sDetailed Results



Facilities


Benchmarks

4. Priority Issues





23

Satisfaction – Key Trends

A core element of this community survey was the rating of 26 facilities/services in terms of importance and satisfaction. The above analysis identifies the key satisfaction trends when

compared to the 2018 research.

Key Satisfaction Trends

2020 2018

Lifeguards 4.14 3.98

Maintenance of bridges 3.94 3.67

Parks, reserves and playgrounds 3.80 3.65

Storm water/flood management 3.74 3.37

Enforcement of pet regulations 3.47 3.16

Coastal management 3.39 3.06

Enforcement of local building regulations 3.28 3.09

Maintenance of public toilets 3.27 2.93

Economic development 3.20 3.04

2020 2018

Cultural facilities 3.34 3.64

Creation or attraction of cultural and sporting events

3.79 3.94

Libraries 3.83 4.11

Compared to 2018 research, there were significant increases in resident satisfaction for 9 of the 25 comparable services/facilities provided by Council, specifically:

There was also a significant decline in resident satisfaction for the following:


24

Importance & Satisfaction – Highest/Lowest Rated Services/Facilities

The above analysis identifies the highest and lowest rated services/facilities in terms of importance and satisfaction.

Importance Satisfaction

The following services/facilities received the highest importance mean ratings:

Top 5 for importance Mean T2 Box

Waste and recycling 4.75 95%

Protection of the natural environment 4.68 94%

Lifeguards 4.64 92%

Parks, reserves and playgrounds 4.60 94%

Storm water/flood management 4.59 91%

The following services/facilities received the lowest importance mean ratings:

Bottom 5 for importance Mean T2 Box

Maintenance of unsealed roads 3.63 57%

Online services such as the website 3.81 66%

Libraries 3.82 65%

Cultural facilities 3.83 66%

Enforcement of pet regulations 4.00 71%

The following services/facilities received the highest satisfaction mean ratings:

The following services/facilities received the lowest satisfaction mean ratings:

Scale: 1 = not at all important, 5 = very important Scale: 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfied

Top 5 for satisfaction Mean T3 Box

Sewerage 4.32 95%

Water supply 4.25 93%

Lifeguards 4.14 91%

Sporting facilities 3.94 93%

Maintenance of bridges 3.94 95%

Bottom 5 for satisfaction Mean T3 Box

Maintenance of unsealed roads 3.00 72%

Development application processing 3.06 68%

Maintenance of sealed roads 3.18 78%

Economic development 3.20 77%

Maintenance of public toilets 3.27 77%

25

Identifying Priorities via Specialised AnalysisThe specified research outcomes required us to measure both community importance and community satisfaction with a range of specificservice delivery areas. In order to identify core priorities, we undertook a 2-step analysis process on the stated importance and rated satisfactiondata, after which we conducted a third level of analysis. This level of analysis was a Shapley Regression on the data in order to identify whichfacilities and services are the actual drivers of overall satisfaction with Council.

By examining these approaches to analysis, we have been able to:

Identify and understand the hierarchy of community priorities

Inform the deployment of Council resources in line with community aspirations

Performance Gap Analysis

Quadrant Analysis

Shapley Regression Analysis

Determine the services/facilities that driveoverall satisfaction with Council

Step 1. Performance Gap Analysis (PGA)

PGA establishes the gap between importance and satisfaction. This is calculated by subtracting the top 3 satisfaction score from the top 2importance score. In order to measure performance gaps, respondents are asked to rate the importance of, and their satisfaction with, each of arange of different services or facilities on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = low importance or satisfaction and 5 = high importance or satisfaction. Thesescores are aggregated at a total community level.

The higher the differential between importance and satisfaction, the greater the difference is between the provision of that service by CoffsHarbour City Council and the expectation of the community for that service/facility.

In the table on the following page, we can see the services and facilities with the largest performance gaps.

When analysing the performance gaps, it is expected that there will be some gaps in terms of resident satisfaction. Those services/facilities thathave achieved a performance gap of greater than 20% may be indicative of areas requiring future optimisation.

26

Performance Gap AnalysisWhen we examine the largest performance gaps, we can identify that the majority of the services or facilities have been rated as high in

importance, whilst resident satisfaction for all of these areas is between 68% and 91%.

Service/Facility Importance T2 Box Satisfaction T3 BoxPerformance Gap

(Importance –Satisfaction)

Waste and recycling 95% 77% 18%

Economic development 88% 77% 11%

Protection of the natural environment 94% 84% 10%

Maintenance of sealed roads 87% 78% 9%

Footpaths and cycleways 85% 77% 8%

Maintenance of public toilets 84% 77% 7%

Development application processing 75% 68% 7%

Storm water/flood management 91% 87% 4%

Parks, reserves and playgrounds 94% 91% 3%

Note: Performance gap is the first step in the process, we now need to identify comparative ratings across all services and facilities to get an understanding of relative importance and satisfaction at an LGA level. This is when we undertake step 2 of the analysis.

Please see Appendix A for full Performance Gap Ranking

27

Quadrant AnalysisStep 2. Quadrant Analysis

Quadrant analysis is often helpful in planning future directions based on stated outcomes. It combines the stated importance of the communityand assesses satisfaction with delivery in relation to these needs.

This analysis is completed by plotting the variables on x and y axes, defined by stated importance and rated satisfaction. We aggregate the top 2box importance scores and top 3 satisfaction scores for stated importance and rated satisfaction to identify where the facility or service shouldbe plotted.

On average, Coffs Harbour City Council LGA residents rated services/facilities more important than our Benchmark, and their satisfaction was, onaverage, higher.

Explaining the 4 quadrants (overleaf)

Attributes in the top right quadrant, MAINTAIN, such as ‘parks, reserves and playgrounds’, are Council’s core strengths, and should be treated assuch. Maintain, or even attempt to improve your position in these areas, as they are influential and address clear community needs.

Attributes in the top left quadrant, IMPROVE, such as ‘waste and recycling’ are key concerns in the eyes of your residents. In the vast majority ofcases you should aim to improve your performance in these areas to better meet the community’s expectations.

Attributes in the bottom left quadrant, NICHE, such as ‘maintenance of unsealed roads’, are of a relatively lower priority (and the word ‘relatively’should be stressed – they are still important). These areas tend to be important to a particular segment of the community.

Finally, attributes in the bottom right quadrant, COMMUNITY, such as ‘libraries’, are core strengths, but in relative terms they are considered lessovertly important than other directly obvious areas. However, the occupants of this quadrant tend to be the sort of services and facilities thatdeliver to community liveability, i.e. make it a good place to live.

Recommendations based only on stated importance and satisfaction have major limitations, as the actual questionnaire process essentially ‘silos’facilities and services as if they are independent variables, when they are in fact all part of the broader community perception of councilperformance.

Coffs Harbour City Council Micromex Regional Benchmark

Average Importance 81% 77%

Average Satisfaction 84% 81%

28

ImproveHigher importance, lower satisfaction

MaintainHigher importance, higher satisfaction

Imp

ort

anc

e

NicheLower importance, lower satisfaction

Satisfaction CommunityLower importance, higher satisfaction

29

The Shapley Value RegressionStep 3. The Shapley Value Regression

The outcomes identified in stated importance/satisfaction analysis often tend to be obvious and challenging. No matter how much focus acouncil dedicates to maintaining sealed roads, it will often be found in the IMPROVE quadrant. This is because, perceptually, the condition oflocal roads can always be better.

Furthermore, the outputs of stated importance and satisfaction analysis address the current dynamics of the community, they do not predictwhich focus areas are the most likely agents to change the community’s perception of Council’s overall performance.

Therefore, in order to identify how Coffs Harbour City Council can actively drive overall community satisfaction, we conducted further analysis

Explanation of Analysis

Regression analysis is a statistical tool for investigating relationships between dependent variables and explanatory variables. Using a Shapleyregression, a category model was developed. The outcomes demonstrated that increasing resident satisfaction by actioning the priorities theystated as being important would not necessarily positively impact on overall satisfaction.

What Does This Mean?

The learning is that if we only rely on the stated community priorities, we will not be allocating the appropriate resources to the actual serviceattributes that will improve overall community satisfaction. Using regression analysis, we can identify the attributes that essentially build overallsatisfaction. We call the outcomes ‘derived importance’.

Identify top services/facilities that will drive overall satisfaction with Council

Map stated satisfaction and derived importance to identify community priority areas

Determine 'optimisers' that will lift overall satisfaction with Council

30

Key Drivers of Overall Satisfaction with Council

These 9 services/facilities are the key community priorities and by addressing these, Coffs Harbour City Council will improve overall community satisfaction. The score assigned to each area indicates the percentage of influence each attribute contributes to

overall satisfaction with Council.In the above chart, ‘maintenance of unsealed roads’ contributes 3.0% towards overall satisfaction, while ‘Council’s level of communication with the community’ (39%) is a far stronger driver, contributing more than three times as much to overall

satisfaction with Council.

Dependent variable: Overall, how satisfied are you with the performance of Council, not just on one or two issues, but across all responsibility areas?

Note: Please see Appendix A for complete list

3.0%

3.2%

3.2%

3.3%

3.4%

4.0%

4.5%

10.7%

39.1%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0%

Maintenance of unsealed roads

Coastal management

Tourism marketing

Council Pools

Development application processing

Economic development


Waste and recycling

Council's level of communication with thecommunity

The results in the chart above identify which services/facilities contribute most to overall satisfaction. If Council can improve satisfaction scores across these services/facilities, they are likely to improve their overall satisfaction score.

The above regression includes the question ‘How satisfied are you currently with the level of communication Council has with the community?’. The analysis highlights the importance of community engagement and consultation.

These top 9 services/facilities (so 35% of the 26 services/facilities) account for more than 70% of the variation in overall satisfaction. Therefore, whilst all 26 services/facilities are important, only a number of them are potentially significant drivers of satisfaction (at this stage, the other 17

services/facilities have less impact on satisfaction – although if resident satisfaction with them was to suddenly change they may have more immediate impact on overall satisfaction).

31

Mapping Stated Satisfaction and Derived Importance Identifies the Community Priority Areas

The above chart looks at the relationship between stated satisfaction (top 3 box) and derived importance (Shapley result) to identify the level of contribution of each measure. Any

services/facilities below the blue line (shown above) could potentially be benchmarked to target in future research to elevate satisfaction levels in these areas.

Derived importance

Sta

ted

sa

tisfa

ctio

n

Key Contributors to Barriers/Optimisers

Different levers address the different levels of satisfaction across the community

-22.2%

-6.7%

-3.9%

-2.0%

-2.8%

-2.3%

-1.0%

-1.2%

16.9%

4.0%

0.6%

1.9%

0.6%

1.1%

2.2%

1.9%

-26.0% -13.0% 0.0% 13.0% 26.0%

Council's level of communication with the community

Waste and recycling




Council Pools

Tourism marketing

Coastal management, including erosion and sea level rise

Optimisers(45%)

Barriers(55%)

The chart below illustrates the positive/negative contribution the key drivers provide towards overall satisfaction. Some drivers can contribute both negatively and positively depending on the overall opinion of the residents.

The scores on the negative indicate the contribution the driver makes to impeding transition towards satisfaction. If Council can address these areas, they should see a lift in future overall satisfaction results, as they positively transition residents who are currently not at all satisfied to being

satisfied with Council performance.

The scores on the positive indicate the contribution the driver makes towards optimising satisfaction. If Council can improve scores in these areas, they will see a lift in future overall satisfaction results, as they will positively transition residents who are currently already ‘somewhat

satisfied’, towards being more satisfied with Council’s overall performance.

Detailed Results



Facilities


Benchmarks

4. Priority Issues





Co

mp

aris

on

to M

icro

me

x Be

nchm

ark

s

34

Comparison to the Micromex LGA Benchmark – Largest Importance Gaps

The charts above display the largest variances between Coffs Harbor City Council’s top 2 box importance scores and the Micromex LGA Benchmark (Regional). Coffs Harbour City LGA

residents place more importance (than benchmark norms) on appearance and environment related measures.

57%

87%82%

65%

77%

93%87%

70%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Maintenanceof unsealed

roads

Maintenanceof sealed

roads

Coastalmanagement

Libraries


Micromex LGA Regional Benchmark

91%94%

81%

94%

65%

80%

67%

83%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Cleanliness ofstreets

Protection ofthe natural

environment

Communityfacilities

Parks, reservesand

playgrounds



Higher Community Priorities(compared to Benchmark norms)

Lower Community Priorities(compared to Benchmark norms)

35

Comparison to the Micromex LGA Benchmark - ImportanceThe table below shows the largest variances between Coffs Harbour City Council’s top 2 box importance scores and the Micromex LGA

Benchmark. We can see that for 7 of the comparable services/facilities, residents’ top 2 box scores are higher than, or equal to 10% above the benchmark score. For those that are lower than Benchmark norms, 1 service, ‘maintenance of unsealed roads’, experienced a variance of ≥10%.

Service/Facility


T2 box importance score

Micromex LGA Benchmark –

RegionalT2 box importance

score

Variance

Cleanliness of streets 91% 65% 26%▲

Protection of the natural environment 94% 80% 14%▲

Community facilities 81% 67% 14%▲

Parks, reserves and playgrounds 94% 83% 11%▲

Storm water/flood management 91% 81% 10%▲

Sporting facilities 86% 76% 10%▲

Creation or attraction of cultural and sporting events 80% 70% 10%▲

Maintenance of sealed roads 87% 93% -6%

Maintenance of unsealed roads 57% 77% -20%▼

Note: Benchmark differences are based on assumed variants of +/- 10%, with variants beyond +/- 10% more likely to be significant▲/▼ = positive/negative difference equal to/greater than 10% from Benchmark.Please see Appendix A for full list of benchmark comparisons.

36

Comparison to the Micromex LGA Benchmark – Largest Satisfaction Gaps

The charts above display the largest variances between Coffs Harbour City Council’s top 3 box satisfaction scores and the Micromex LGA Benchmark (Regional). Coffs Harbour City LGA residents are more satisfied (than benchmark norms) with the maintenance of sealed and

unsealed roads.

77% 79%

88%83%

89% 91%95%

88%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Waste andrecycling

Culturalfacilities

Libraries Coastalmanagement



78%72%

91%

79%

58%55%

74%68%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Maintenanceof sealed

roads

Maintenanceof unsealed

roads

Cleanliness ofstreets

Enforcementof localbuilding

regulationsCoffs Harbour City Council


Higher Levels of Satisfaction(compared to Benchmark norms)

Lower Levels of Satisfaction(compared to Benchmark norms)

37

Comparison to the Micromex LGA Benchmark - SatisfactionThe table below shows the largest variances between Coffs Harbour City Council’s top 3 box satisfaction scores and the Micromex LGA

Benchmark. We can see that for 5 of the comparable services/facilities, residents’ top 3 box scores are higher than, or equal to 10% above the Benchmark score. For those that are lower than Benchmark norms, 2 services, ‘cultural facilities’, and ‘waste and recycling’, experienced a

variance of ≥10%.

Service/Facility


T3 box satisfaction score


RegionalT3 box satisfaction

score

Variance

Maintenance of sealed roads 78% 58% 20%▲

Maintenance of unsealed roads 72% 55% 17%▲


Enforcement of local building regulations 79% 68% 11%▲

Footpaths and cycleways 77% 67% 10%▲

Cultural facilities 79% 91% -12%▼

Waste and recycling 77% 89% -12%▼

Note: Benchmark differences are based on assumed variants of +/- 10%, with variants beyond +/- 10% more likely to be significant▲/▼ = positive/negative difference equal to/greater than 10% from BenchmarkPlease see Appendix A for full list of benchmark comparisons.

Please note: The Micromex Benchmark satisfaction norms are based on surveys where only those rating importance as 4 or higher were asked to rate their satisfaction. Coffs Harbour City Council LGA residents were all asked to rate satisfaction and therefore the below

should be considered as a point of interest only.

Detailed Results



Facilities


Benchmarks

4. Priority Issues





Prio

rity

Issu

es

39

Better Assisting the Community

When asked what Council could do in order to better assist the Coffs Harbour City community in times of local emergency or disaster, 11% suggested to ‘support the community e.g. rate cuts, supporting local businesses’. ‘Keep waste services open/increase garbage collection during this time’ (10%) was also a

common response, as well as concerns around the new Cultural Centre (10%).

Q1. What do you believe Council could do in order to better assist our community over the coming months of COVID-19 or in other times of local emergency or disaster?

10%

10%

10%

8%

7%

6%

4%

4%

4%

4%

40%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Keep waste services open/increase garbagecollection during this time

Stop building new Cultural Centre

Support the community e.g. rate cuts, supportinglocal business

Improved communication/provision ofinformation/consultation

Policing COVID rules/restrictions

Council is doing well/can't do much/the issue isbeyond Council

Be better prepared in the future for emergencyevents e.g. floods, fires

Better Council management e.g. budgeting,staffing, development priorities

Continue Council services e.g. maintenance,cleaning, upgrades

While things are quiet work on roads/supportinginfrastructure

Don't know/nothing

Base: N = 504 Please see Appendix A for full list of responses

40

Priority Issues

18% of Coffs Harbour LGA residents suggested ‘maintaining/improving roads’ as the highest priority issue. General town maintenance, as well as completion of the bypass were also

common responses.

Q2b. Thinking of the next 10 years, what do you believe will be the highest priority issues within the Coffs Harbour City Council region?

Base: N = 504

18%

17%

15%

13%

12%

9%

9%

8%

0% 10% 20%

Maintaining/improving roads

General town maintenance includingupdated infrastructure, development

and cleanliness in the area

Completion of bypass

Improved Council management e.g.budgeting, communications, planning

Employment/business opportunities

Improved/additionalfootpaths/cycleways

Waste services/management

Against building of the Cultural Centre

Please see Appendix A for full list of responses‘

Livi

ng in

the

Co

ffs H

arb

our

LG

ADetailed Results



Facilities


Benchmarks

4. Priority Issues





42

Most Valued Aspect of Living in the Coffs Harbour LGA

48% of residents suggested the ‘natural environment/beauty’ as the most valued aspect about living in the Coffs Harbour region. The lifestyle and atmosphere in the area was also highly

valued.

Q2a. What do you value most about living in the Coffs Harbour City Council region?

Base: N = 504

48%

21%

18%

18%

13%

12%

7%

4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Natural environment/beauty of thebeaches and mountains

Lifestyle/atmosphere e.g. quiet,relaxed, rural, coastal

Central location/proximity tobeaches, services and facilities

Weather and climate

Community feel e.g. friendly, familyarea

Availability of good qualityservices/facilities/activities

I have always lived here/it ishome/nice area

A well maintained area e.g. clean,good roads, upgrades

Please see Appendix A for full list of responses‘

43

Quality of Life

Quality of life in the Coffs Harbour City Council LGA is very high, with 96% of residents rating it as good to excellent, and a significantly higher portion of residents selected the top box of ‘excellent’ than

regional benchmark norms. Ratepayers rated their quality of life significantly higher than non-ratepayers, and quality of life was higher in rural locations than in urban settings.

Q3. Overall, how would you rate the quality of life you have living in the Coffs Harbour City Council region?

▲▼ = A significantly higher/lower rating (by group)↑↓ = A significantly higher/lower rating (compared to the benchmark)

Overall 2020 Male Female 18–34 35–49 50–64 65+

Mean rating 5.21 5.28 5.14 5.16 5.23 5.26 5.18

Base 504 241 263 115 114 138 136



yearsUrban Rural

Mean rating 5.27▲ 4.99 5.16 5.22 5.19 5.33

Base 392 107 72 430 376 93

43%↑

41%

12%↓

3%

1%

<1%

31%

42%

21%

4%

1%

<1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Excellent (6)

Very good (5)

Good (4)

Fair (3)

Poor (2)

Very poor (1)

Coffs Harbour City Council (N=504) Micromex LGA Benchmark - Regional (N=4,861)

Coffs Harbour City

Council

Micromex LGA Benchmark -

Regional

Mean rating 5.21↑ 4.96

T3 Box 96% 94%

Base 504 4,861

Scale: 1 = very poor, 6 = excellent

Co

nta

ct a

nd C

om

mun

ica

tion

Detailed Results



Facilities


Benchmarks

4. Priority Issues





45

Contact with Council

45% of Coffs Harbour City LGA residents had made contact with Council in the last 12 months, an increase from 2018 results. Ratepayers were significantly more likely to have made contact

and across age groups, those aged 35-64 were more likely to have made contact.

Q6. Have you contacted Council within the past 12 months?

▲▼ = A significantly higher/lower percentage (by group)

Overall 2020

Overall 2018

Male Female 18–34 35–49 50–64 65+

Yes 45%▲ 35% 43% 46% 40% 50% 50% 38%

Base 504 506 241 263 115 114 138 136



yearsUrban Rural

Yes 48%▲ 33% 49% 44% 43% 50%

Base 392 107 72 430 376 93

Yes 45%No 55%

Base: N=504

46

Contact with Council

Of those who had made contact with Council, 70% had made contact more than once, with an average of 2.4 contacts. The percentage of residents making contact four or more times

has increased slightly since 2018.

Q7. (If yes on Q6) Could you please tell me approximately how many times you have contacted Council during this time?

Number of contacts Overall 2020 Overall 2018 Male Female 18-34 35 – 49 50 – 64 65+

Once (1) 30% 32% 26% 33% 30% 25% 27% 40%

Twice (2) 24% 25% 25% 24% 28% 25% 23% 23%

Three times (3) 17% 20% 19% 15% 8% 19% 22% 15%

Four or more times (4) 29% 23% 31% 27% 35% 31% 29% 22%

Mean 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.2▼

Base 225 178 103 122 46 58 69 52

Number of contactsRatepayer status Time lived in the area Location type


yearsUrban Rural

Once (1) 30% 34% 29% 30% 30% 25%

Twice (2) 25% 21% 29% 23% 28% 18%

Three times (3) 17% 12% 6% 19%▲ 14% 28%▲

Four or more times (4) 28% 33% 36% 28% 29% 29%

Mean 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.6

Base 187 36 35 188 161 46

30%24%

17%

29%32%25%

20% 23%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Once Twice Three times Four or more times2020 2018

▲▼ = A significantly higher/lower percentage or rating (by group)Note: 2018 respondents that stated ‘unsure’ were not included in the above analysis

47

Reasons for Contacting Council

For residents that had made contact with Council, ‘garbage/waste management/recycling/tips’ (15%) and ‘development applications (13%) were the most common reasons for contact. Those aged 18-34 were

significantly more likely to make contact regarding ‘businesses/economic development enquiries’ and ‘water billing’, and those living in rural settings were significantly more likely to make contact regarding ‘development

applications’.

Q8a. (If yes on Q6) Thinking about your most recent enquiry, what was that contact regarding?

13%

3%

1%

1%

2%

1%

4%

2%

6%

4%

14%

9%

9%

12%15%

17%

3%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

2%

2%

2%

3%

3%

5%

8%

8%

9%

9%

13%15%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

Other

Can’t recall

Traffic management/parking

Septic tanks

Road or bridge closures

Other parks and gardens

Cultural facilities

Community facilities

Building inspection inquiries

Sporting facilities

Community development enquiries

Business/economic development enquiries

Drainage problem

Water billing

Road and footpath improvements

Rates inquiry

Ranger matters - barking dogs, livestock, etc.

Water, sewage

Vegetation and trees

Development application (DA)

Garbage/waste management/recycling/tips

2020 (N=225) 2018 (N=179)

Please see Appendix A for results by demographics and ‘other specified responses

48

Resolution of the Issue

45% of residents that had made contact with Council stated their issue was resolved after the first contact, with a mean of 1.7 contacts to have an issue resolved. The 18-34 age group were

more likely to state that their issue was resolved after the first contact.

Q8b. (If yes on Q6) And regarding that matter, how many times did you need to contact Council to have your issue resolved?

31%

3%

6%

16%

43%

26%

5%

10%

15%

45%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Not yet resolved (NA)

4 or more times (4)

Three times (3)

Twice (2)

Once (1)

2020 (N=225) 2018 (N=178)

Please see Appendix A for results by demographicsNote: Issues that are still not resolved were not included in the mean calculation

Mean number of contacts = 1.7

49

3%

13%

15%

68%

2%

12%

15%

71%

0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 75%

Letter

Face-to-face

Email or website

Telephone

2020 (N=225) 2018 (N=179)

Method of Contact

As was the case in 2018, telephone was the most common method of contacting Council. There were no significant differences across demographics, however those that have lived in

the area for up to 10 years were more likely to have made contact via email or website.

Q8c. (If yes on Q6) How did you first make contact with Council?

Note: No respondents selected the options ‘MyBin app’ or ‘social media’

Method of contact Overall 2020 Overall 2018 Male Female 18-34 35 – 49 50 – 64 65+Telephone 71% 68% 68% 73% 70% 72% 77% 63%Email or website 15% 15% 14% 16% 16% 17% 10% 18%Face-to-face 12% 13% 15% 9% 14% 10% 10% 15%Letter 2% 3% 3% 2% 0% 1% 4% 5%Base 225 179 103 122 46 58 69 52

Method of contactRatepayer status Time lived in the area Location type


yearsUrban Rural

Telephone 71% 68% 72% 70% 71% 68%Email or website 15% 16% 22% 14% 15% 16%Face-to-face 11% 16% 6% 13% 12% 12%Letter 3% 0% 0% 3% 3% 3%Base 187 36 35 188 161 46

Note: In 2018, the ‘letter’ option was previously worded ‘letter or fax’, and 1% stated ‘unsure’.

50

Satisfaction with Contact

77% of residents that had made contact with Council were at least somewhat satisfied with the way their latest inquiry was handled. Although slightly below benchmark norms, results have been following an upward trend since 2014. Females, younger residents (18-34) and those

living in Rural areas expressed higher levels of satisfaction with their contact.

Q8d. (If yes on Q6) And how would you rate your satisfaction with the way Council handled the latest inquiry?

Overall 2020

Overall 2018

Overall 2016

Overall 2014

Male Female 18–34 35–49 50–64 65+

Mean rating 3.59 3.46 3.46 3.27 3.32 3.81▲ 3.97 3.55 3.65 3.21▼

Base 225 179 180 189 103 122 46 58 69 52



yearsUrban Rural

Mean rating 3.58 3.63 3.59 3.59 3.67 3.20

Base 187 36 35 188 161 46

33%

28%▲

16%

10%

13%

39%

18%

15%

8%

20%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Very satisfied (5)

Satisfied (4)




2020 (N=225) 2018 (N=179)


Micromex LGA Benchmark


T3 Box 77% 80%

Base 225 23,641

▲▼= A significantly higher/lower level of satisfaction (by group/year)Scale: 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfied

51

Satisfaction By Method of and Number of Contacts

Those that made contact via ‘telephone’ demonstrated significantly higher levels of satisfaction, whilst those using non-direct methods, email, website and letter, expressed significantly lower levels. Residents that had their inquiry resolved after only one contact were significantly more satisfied, however, once more than one

point of contact was required, the number of contacts did not impact satisfaction.

Q8d. (If yes on Q6) And how would you rate your satisfaction with the way Council handled the latest inquiry?

Overall 2020 Telephone Face-to-face Email or website Letter

Mean rating 3.59 3.80▲ 3.53 2.87▼ 2.18▼

Base 225 159 27 34 6*

Scale: 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfied*Caution low base ▲▼= A significantly higher/lower level of satisfaction (by method/number of contacts)

Q8c. (If yes on Q6) How did you first make contact with Council?

Q8b. (If yes on Q6) And regarding that matter, how many times did you need to contact Council to have your issue resolved?

Once Twice Three times Four or more times

Mean rating 4.24▲ 3.70 3.65 3.71

Base 100 34 22 11

52

Council’s Level of Communication

79% of residents are at least somewhat satisfied with the level of communication Council currently has with the community. These results are on par with Regional Benchmark norms.

Those aged 18-34 demonstrated significantly higher levels of satisfaction with Council’s level of communication.

Q9. How satisfied are you with the level of communication Council currently has with the community?

Overall 2020 Male Female 18–34 35–49 50–64 65+

Mean rating 3.32 3.25 3.39 3.65▲ 3.18 3.28 3.20

Base 504 241 263 115 114 138 136



yearsUrban Rural

Mean rating 3.31 3.36 3.52 3.29 3.32 3.25

Base 392 107 72 430 376 93

11%

39%

29%

12%

9%

10%

39%

30%

15%

6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Very satisfied (5)

Satisfied (4)




Coffs Harbour City Council (N=504)Micromex LGA Benchmark - Regional (N=12,854)


Micromex LGA Regional

Benchmark


T3 Box 79% 79%

Base 504 12,854


53

Preferred Communication Methods

Overall, ‘local newspapers’ (75%) and ‘radio’ (73%) were the most preferred channels for receiving information about Council. However looking at specific demographics we see that for 18-34 year old's, the most common

channel selected was ‘Facebook’ (83%), and for residents who have lived in the LGA for 10 years or less, the top option was ‘Council’s website’.

Q10. In the future which of the following channels would you like to receive information about Council?

2%

8%

14%

20%

36%

43%

44%

44%

45%

49%

53%

54%

61%

63%

73%

75%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Other

LinkedIn

Twitter

Instagram

Brochures/flyers

Online platforms (e.g. Have Your Say)

Email

Council e-Newsletter

Libraries

Facebook

Council community centres

Community organisations/groups

TV

Council website

Radio

Local newspaper

Other specified Count

Letters in the mail 2Prefer not to receive information from

Council2

Telephone 2Happy to receive information in any

form1

Hard copy of Council newsletter 1

Local schools 1

SMS 1

Word of mouth 1

Base: N=504 Please see Appendix A for results by demographics

Imp

ort

anc

e o

f, a

nd s

atis

fac

tion

with

, C

oun

cil

Serv

ice

s a

nd F

ac

ilitie

s Detailed Results



Facilities


Benchmarks

4. Priority Issues





55

Service AreasA core element of this customer satisfaction was the rating of 26 facilities/services in terms of Importance and Satisfaction. Each of the 26

facilities/services were grouped into service areas as detailed below:

An Explanation

The following pages detail the Shapley findings for each service area, rank services/facilities within each service area and identify the stated importance and satisfaction ratings by key demographics.

ImportanceFor the stated importance ratings, residents were asked to rate how important each of the criteria was to them, on a scale of 1 to 5.

SatisfactionFor the stated satisfaction ratings, residents were asked to rate how satisfied they are with each of the criteria, on a scale of 1 to 5.

Note: All respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction, regardless of their importance score.

Infrastructure

Water supply

Maintenance of sealed roads


Waste and recycling

Sewerage

Storm water/flood management

Maintenance of bridges

Maintenance of public toilets

Footpaths and cycleways

Environment/Open Spaces

Coastal management, including erosion and sea level rise

Protection of the natural environment

Cleanliness of streets

Parks, reserves and playgrounds

Community

Libraries

Lifeguards

Cultural facilities (Jetty Theatre, Regional Art Gallery, Regional Museum)

Council Pools

Sporting facilities

Community facilities (e.g. halls, youth space)

Creation or attraction of cultural and sporting events (e.g. festivals, concerts in community halls and one-off events and

concerts)

Corporate

Tourism marketing

Economic development (strategies to boost local businesses and jobs)


Enforcement of pet regulations


Online services such as the website

Contribution to Overall Satisfaction with Council’s Performance

1.2%

2.9%

2.7%

2.7%

39.1%

8.7%

11.5%

16.3%

24.4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Council's level ofcommunication with the

community

Nett: Community

Nett: Environment/OpenSpaces

Nett: Corporate

Nett: Infrastructure

Nett Contribution Average service/facility

By combining the outcomes of the regression data, we can identify the derived importance of the different Nett Priority Areas. After Council’s level of communication with the community (39%), ‘Infrastructure’ (24%) is the key contributor toward overall satisfaction with Council’s

performance, although each of the services/facilities grouped under this area average 2.7%, whereas those within the ‘Environment/Open Spaces’ service area average 2.9%.

Note: ‘Council’s level of communication with the community’ (green bar) was an extra question added in to the regression analysis. The following pages analyse the individual service areas and their contribution to overall satisfaction. Q9 ‘How satisfied are you currently with

the level of communication Council has with the community?’ is not included in the following service area analysis.

57

Service Area 1: InfrastructureShapley Regression

Contributes to Almost 25% of Overall Satisfaction with Council

24.4%

10.7%

3.0%

2.6%

2.2%

1.9%

1.3%

1.1%

0.9%

0.5%

0% 10% 20% 30%

Nett: Infrastructure

Waste and recycling




Sewerage

Water supply




58

Service Area 1: Infrastructure

Within the ‘Infrastructure’ service area, in terms of importance, ‘waste and recycling’ is considered to be the most important, whilst ‘maintenance of unsealed roads’ is the facility of least relative importance. In terms of satisfaction, residents are most satisfied with ‘sewerage’

and ‘maintenance of bridges’ and least satisfied with ‘maintenance of unsealed roads’.

Hierarchy of Services/Facilities

Waste and recycling 95% 77%

Storm water/flood management 91% 87%

Water supply 87% 93%

Maintenance of sealed roads 87% 78%

Sewerage 86% 95%

Footpaths and cycleways 85% 77%

Maintenance of public toilets 84% 77%

Maintenance of bridges 80% 95%

Maintenance of unsealed roads 57% 72%

Importance T2BService/Facility(Ranked high – low on importance)

Satisfaction T3B

59

Service Area 1: InfrastructureImportance Mean Scores by Key Demographics

Scale: 1 = not at all important, 5 = very importantSignificantly higher/lower level of importance (by group)

Overall Male Female 18-34 35 – 49 50 – 64 65+

Water supply 4.42 4.27 4.57 4.60 4.55 4.21 4.39

Maintenance of sealed roads 4.48 4.32 4.63 4.56 4.49 4.46 4.42

Maintenance of unsealed roads 3.63 3.53 3.72 3.72 3.64 3.57 3.61

Waste and recycling 4.75 4.63 4.85 4.83 4.75 4.70 4.72

Sewerage 4.40 4.27 4.52 4.27 4.51 4.25 4.57

Storm water/flood management 4.59 4.43 4.74 4.60 4.62 4.54 4.61

Maintenance of bridges 4.26 4.15 4.37 4.09 4.36 4.28 4.32

Maintenance of public toilets 4.39 4.24 4.52 4.18 4.49 4.38 4.47

Footpaths and cycleways 4.38 4.22 4.53 4.28 4.44 4.40 4.40


RatepayerNon-

ratepayerUp to 10

yearsMore than

10 yearsUrban Rural

Water supply 4.36 4.64 4.57 4.40 4.70 3.65

Maintenance of sealed roads 4.48 4.47 4.54 4.47 4.51 4.40

Maintenance of unsealed roads 3.63 3.60 3.65 3.63 3.58 3.85

Waste and recycling 4.74 4.76 4.82 4.73 4.75 4.68

Sewerage 4.34 4.61 4.44 4.40 4.68 3.51

Storm water/flood management 4.58 4.62 4.65 4.58 4.66 4.36

Maintenance of bridges 4.25 4.31 4.16 4.28 4.21 4.45

Maintenance of public toilets 4.32 4.60 4.33 4.39 4.37 4.47

Footpaths and cycleways 4.35 4.48 4.55 4.35 4.43 4.25

60

Service Area 1: InfrastructureDetailed Overall Response for Importance

Not at all important

Not very important

Somewhat important

Important Very important Base

Water supply 8% 2% 3% 14% 73% 504

Maintenance of sealed roads <1% 2% 11% 23% 64% 504

Maintenance of unsealed roads 12% 8% 23% 20% 37% 504

Waste and recycling 1% 1% 3% 13% 82% 504

Sewerage 8% 1% 5% 13% 73% 504

Storm water/flood management 2% 1% 6% 18% 73% 504

Maintenance of bridges 6% 2% 11% 20% 60% 504

Maintenance of public toilets 4% 3% 9% 20% 64% 504

Footpaths and cycleways 3% 1% 11% 25% 60% 504

61

Service Area 1: InfrastructureSatisfaction Mean Scores by Key Demographics

Scale: 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfiedSignificantly higher/lower level of satisfaction (by group)


Water supply 4.25 4.21 4.29 4.60 4.19 4.03 4.21

Maintenance of sealed roads 3.18 3.31 3.06 3.24 3.11 3.10 3.27

Maintenance of unsealed roads 3.00 3.11 2.89 3.03 2.89 3.07 2.97

Waste and recycling 3.40 3.34 3.46 3.50 3.24 3.30 3.56

Sewerage 4.32 4.34 4.30 4.48 4.29 4.10 4.41

Storm water/flood management 3.74 3.72 3.76 3.83 3.65 3.68 3.81

Maintenance of bridges 3.94 3.90 3.98 4.18 4.07 3.83 3.75

Maintenance of public toilets 3.27 3.45 3.12 2.96 3.25 3.35 3.50

Footpaths and cycleways 3.30 3.32 3.29 3.69 3.25 3.15 3.17


RatepayerNon-

ratepayerUp to 10

yearsMore than

10 yearsUrban Rural

Water supply 4.20 4.42 4.43 4.22 4.39 3.53

Maintenance of sealed roads 3.19 3.13 3.06 3.20 3.23 3.08

Maintenance of unsealed roads 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.06 2.79

Waste and recycling 3.38 3.45 3.78 3.34 3.36 3.53

Sewerage 4.29 4.38 4.32 4.32 4.44 3.77

Storm water/flood management 3.78 3.62 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.70

Maintenance of bridges 3.88 4.16 4.12 3.91 4.00 3.68

Maintenance of public toilets 3.32 3.12 3.23 3.28 3.25 3.28

Footpaths and cycleways 3.26 3.50 3.44 3.28 3.30 3.37

62

Service Area 1: InfrastructureDetailed Overall Response for Satisfaction

Not at all satisfied

Not very satisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Satisfied Very satisfied Base

Water supply 4% 3% 12% 26% 55% 471

Maintenance of sealed roads 6% 15% 43% 25% 10% 501

Maintenance of unsealed roads 10% 19% 44% 18% 10% 426

Waste and recycling 12% 11% 25% 29% 23% 500

Sewerage 4% 2% 9% 31% 55% 463

Storm water/flood management 5% 8% 22% 37% 28% 488

Maintenance of bridges 1% 5% 23% 41% 31% 449

Maintenance of public toilets 5% 17% 35% 29% 13% 474

Footpaths and cycleways 8% 15% 32% 29% 16% 492

63

Service Area 2: Environment/Open SpacesShapley Regression

Contributes to Over 10% of Overall Satisfaction with Council

11.5%

3.2%

2.9%

2.9%

2.6%

0% 10% 20%

Nett: Environment/Open Spaces

Coastal management, including erosion and sealevel rise




64

Service Area 2: Environment/Open Spaces

Within the ‘Environment/Open Spaces’ service area, in terms of importance, ‘parks, reserves and playgrounds’ as well as ‘protection of the natural environment’ are considered to be the most important, whilst ‘coastal management’ is the facility of least relative importance. In terms of satisfaction, residents

are most satisfied with ‘cleanliness of streets’ and ‘parks, reserves and playgrounds’ and least satisfied with ‘coastal management’.


Parks, reserves and playgrounds 94% 91%

Protection of the natural environment 94% 84%

Cleanliness of streets 91% 91%

Coastal management, including erosion and sea level rise 82% 83%


Satisfaction T3B

65

Service Area 2: Environment/Open SpacesImportance Mean Scores by Key Demographics



Coastal management 4.30 4.09 4.50 4.31 4.39 4.33 4.20

Protection of the natural environment 4.68 4.59 4.76 4.71 4.71 4.63 4.68

Cleanliness of streets 4.53 4.45 4.60 4.49 4.54 4.47 4.60

Parks, reserves and playgrounds 4.60 4.47 4.71 4.59 4.60 4.61 4.59


RatepayerNon-

ratepayerUp to 10

yearsMore than

10 yearsUrban Rural

Coastal management 4.26 4.49 4.59 4.26 4.36 4.28

Protection of the natural environment 4.64 4.81 4.79 4.66 4.72 4.59

Cleanliness of streets 4.51 4.57 4.59 4.52 4.52 4.58

Parks, reserves and playgrounds 4.57 4.68 4.68 4.58 4.58 4.67

66

Service Area 2: Environment/Open SpacesDetailed Overall Response for Importance


Not very important

Somewhat important

ImportantVery

importantBase

Coastal management 4% 4% 10% 21% 61% 504

Protection of the natural environment 1% 1% 4% 17% 77% 504

Cleanliness of streets <1% 1% 8% 28% 63% 504

Parks, reserves and playgrounds 1% 1% 4% 24% 70% 504

67

Service Area 2: Environment/Open SpacesSatisfaction Mean Scores by Key Demographics



Coastal management 3.39 3.25 3.51 3.68 3.44 3.20 3.30

Protection of the natural environment 3.45 3.43 3.46 3.65 3.51 3.28 3.38

Cleanliness of streets 3.83 3.77 3.88 3.89 3.87 3.77 3.79

Parks, reserves and playgrounds 3.80 3.72 3.88 3.81 3.89 3.71 3.81


RatepayerNon-

ratepayerUp to 10

yearsMore than

10 yearsUrban Rural

Coastal management 3.38 3.45 3.71 3.34 3.45 3.22

Protection of the natural environment 3.41 3.55 3.54 3.43 3.50 3.28

Cleanliness of streets 3.80 3.93 3.99 3.80 3.85 3.70

Parks, reserves and playgrounds 3.74 4.06 3.95 3.78 3.83 3.70

68

Service Area 2: Environment/Open SpacesDetailed Overall Response for Satisfaction


Not very satisfied

Somewhat satisfied


Coastal management 5% 13% 38% 28% 17% 461

Protection of the natural environment 6% 9% 36% 29% 19% 491

Cleanliness of streets 4% 5% 23% 42% 26% 504

Parks, reserves and playgrounds 2% 6% 28% 37% 26% 498

69

Service Area 3: CommunityShapley Regression

Contributes to Almost 10% of Overall Satisfaction with Council

8.7%

3.3%

1.7%

1.3%

1.1%

0.7%

0.3%

0.2%

0% 5% 10%

Nett: Community

Council Pools

Sporting facilities

Cultural facilities (Jetty Theatre, Regional Art Gallery,Regional Museum)

Community facilities (e.g. halls, youth space)

Creation or attraction of cultural and sporting events(e.g. festivals, concerts in community halls and one-

off events and concerts)

Lifeguards

Libraries

70

Service Area 3: Community

Within the ‘Community’ service area, in terms of importance, ‘lifeguards’ is considered to be the most important, whilst ‘libraries’ is the facility of least relative importance. In terms of

satisfaction, residents are most satisfied with ‘sporting facilities’ and least satisfied with ‘cultural facilities’.


Lifeguards 92% 91%

Sporting facilities 86% 93%

Community facilities 81% 85%

Creation or attraction of cultural and sporting events 80% 90%

Council Pools 75% 87%

Cultural facilities 66% 79%

Libraries 65% 88%


Satisfaction T3B

71

Service Area 3: CommunityImportance Mean Scores by Key Demographics



Libraries 3.82 3.46 4.14 3.53 3.90 3.61 4.20

Lifeguards 4.64 4.50 4.77 4.69 4.69 4.52 4.67

Cultural facilities 3.83 3.62 4.02 3.69 3.90 3.77 3.95

Council Pools 4.08 3.82 4.31 3.84 4.23 4.13 4.09

Sporting facilities 4.39 4.34 4.44 4.31 4.49 4.35 4.42

Community facilities 4.24 4.08 4.39 3.99 4.23 4.27 4.44


4.22 4.02 4.40 4.19 4.38 4.14 4.19


RatepayerNon-

ratepayerUp to 10

yearsMore than

10 yearsUrban Rural

Libraries 3.79 3.87 3.87 3.81 3.83 3.79

Lifeguards 4.60 4.79 4.83 4.61 4.72 4.43

Cultural facilities 3.75 4.12 3.80 3.84 3.82 3.93

Council Pools 4.04 4.22 4.31 4.04 4.04 4.23

Sporting facilities 4.40 4.38 4.31 4.41 4.39 4.37

Community facilities 4.24 4.27 4.23 4.24 4.16 4.51


4.18 4.34 4.41 4.18 4.21 4.16

72

Service Area 3: CommunityDetailed Overall Response for Importance


Not very important

Somewhat important

ImportantVery

importantBase

Libraries 9% 8% 18% 22% 43% 504

Lifeguards 2% 2% 4% 13% 79% 504

Cultural facilities 8% 6% 21% 27% 39% 504

Council Pools 8% 3% 14% 23% 52% 504

Sporting facilities 2% 2% 9% 26% 60% 504

Community facilities 4% 1% 14% 28% 53% 504


5% 4% 12% 24% 56% 504

73

Service Area 3: CommunitySatisfaction Mean Scores by Key Demographics



Libraries 3.83 3.65 3.98 3.97 3.93 3.55 3.92

Lifeguards 4.14 4.17 4.10 4.11 4.08 4.00 4.36

Cultural facilities 3.34 3.29 3.39 3.64 3.44 3.14 3.22

Council Pools 3.69 3.63 3.74 3.84 3.59 3.62 3.71

Sporting facilities 3.94 3.94 3.95 4.03 3.80 3.92 4.01

Community facilities 3.48 3.39 3.56 3.37 3.62 3.34 3.59


3.79 3.69 3.88 3.91 3.85 3.82 3.60


RatepayerNon-

ratepayerUp to 10

yearsMore than

10 yearsUrban Rural

Libraries 3.84 3.81 3.94 3.82 3.92 3.66

Lifeguards 4.07 4.35 4.28 4.11 4.13 4.03

Cultural facilities 3.28 3.56 3.64 3.29 3.39 3.19

Council Pools 3.63 3.87 3.76 3.67 3.71 3.68

Sporting facilities 3.91 4.09 3.85 3.96 4.00 3.80

Community facilities 3.43 3.66 3.65 3.46 3.44 3.62


3.78 3.83 3.70 3.80 3.78 3.77

74

Service Area 3: CommunityDetailed Overall Response for Satisfaction


Not very satisfied

Somewhat satisfied


Libraries 3% 8% 21% 36% 31% 444

Lifeguards 3% 6% 14% 27% 50% 482

Cultural facilities 7% 13% 35% 26% 18% 465

Council Pools 6% 7% 25% 36% 26% 460

Sporting facilities 1% 6% 20% 44% 29% 491

Community facilities 4% 10% 35% 33% 17% 458


2% 7% 27% 36% 27% 486

75

Service Area 4: CorporateShapley Regression

Contributes to Over 15% of Overall Satisfaction with Council

16.3%

4.5%

4.0%

3.4%

3.2%

0.9%

0.2%

0% 10% 20%

Nett: Corporate


Economic development (strategies to boost localbusinesses and jobs)


Tourism marketing



76

Service Area 4: Corporate

Within the ‘Corporate’ service area, in terms of importance, ‘economic development’ is considered to be the most important, whilst the ‘online services such as the website’ is the facility of least relative

importance. In terms of satisfaction, residents are most satisfied with ‘tourism marketing’ and ‘online services’ and least satisfied with ‘development application processing’.


Economic development 88% 77%

Enforcement of local building regulations 78% 79%

Development application processing 75% 68%

Tourism marketing 74% 87%

Enforcement of pet regulations 71% 82%

Online services such as the website 66% 87%


Satisfaction T3B

77

Service Area 4: CorporateImportance Mean Scores by Key Demographics



Tourism marketing 4.12 3.92 4.32 4.11 4.26 4.03 4.12

Economic development 4.44 4.37 4.51 4.46 4.61 4.38 4.34

Enforcement of local building regulations 4.20 4.02 4.35 3.78 4.23 4.25 4.46

Enforcement of pet regulations 4.00 3.69 4.28 3.79 3.93 3.94 4.28

Development application processing 4.06 4.08 4.04 3.53 4.01 4.22 4.38

Online services such as the website 3.81 3.62 3.98 3.69 4.09 3.97 3.51


RatepayerNon-

ratepayerUp to 10

yearsMore than

10 yearsUrban Rural

Tourism marketing 4.07 4.31 4.38 4.09 4.21 3.83

Economic development 4.42 4.51 4.53 4.43 4.52 4.24

Enforcement of local building regulations 4.17 4.26 4.12 4.21 4.21 4.19

Enforcement of pet regulations 3.99 4.00 4.32 3.94 4.04 3.90

Development application processing 4.11 3.88 3.90 4.09 3.99 4.29

Online services such as the website 3.74 4.03 4.01 3.77 3.79 3.83

78

Service Area 4: CorporateDetailed Overall Response for Importance


Not very important

Somewhat important

ImportantVery

importantBase

Tourism marketing 5% 4% 17% 23% 51% 504

Economic development 2% 1% 8% 25% 63% 504

Enforcement of local building regulations 4% 4% 14% 25% 53% 504

Enforcement of pet regulations 5% 4% 20% 29% 42% 504

Development application processing 9% 4% 12% 23% 52% 504

Online services such as the website 9% 6% 19% 26% 40% 504

79

Service Area 4: CorporateSatisfaction Mean Scores by Key Demographics



Tourism marketing 3.60 3.45 3.73 3.84 3.70 3.50 3.40

Economic development 3.20 3.10 3.29 3.56 3.01 3.07 3.21

Enforcement of local building regulations 3.28 3.30 3.27 3.73 3.29 3.04 3.21

Enforcement of pet regulations 3.47 3.34 3.58 3.72 3.53 3.27 3.39

Development application processing 3.06 3.00 3.12 3.34 3.02 2.98 2.99

Online services such as the website 3.51 3.41 3.60 3.75 3.45 3.54 3.30


RatepayerNon-

ratepayerUp to 10

yearsMore than

10 yearsUrban Rural

Tourism marketing 3.53 3.84 3.98 3.53 3.64 3.46

Economic development 3.14 3.41 3.34 3.18 3.23 3.06

Enforcement of local building regulations 3.23 3.48 3.51 3.25 3.32 3.12

Enforcement of pet regulations 3.42 3.60 3.50 3.46 3.45 3.58

Development application processing 3.03 3.18 3.12 3.06 3.10 3.02

Online services such as the website 3.47 3.63 3.73 3.47 3.47 3.58

80

Service Area 4: CorporateDetailed Overall Response for Satisfaction


Not very satisfied

Somewhat satisfied


Tourism marketing 4% 8% 32% 33% 22% 474

Economic development 6% 17% 40% 25% 12% 473

Enforcement of local building regulations 8% 13% 37% 28% 14% 440

Enforcement of pet regulations 6% 11% 33% 30% 19% 466

Development application processing 8% 24% 33% 24% 11% 402

Online services such as the website 3% 11% 38% 30% 19% 432

81

Comparison to Previous Research - SatisfactionService/Facility

Satisfaction

2020 2018

Water supply 4.25 4.23

Maintenance of sealed roads 3.18 3.24

Maintenance of unsealed roads 3.00 2.89

Waste and recycling 3.40 3.53

Sewerage 4.32 4.30

Storm water/flood management 3.74▲ 3.37

Coastal management 3.39▲ 3.06

Protection of the natural environment 3.45 3.33

Cleanliness of streets 3.83 3.70

Maintenance of bridges 3.94▲ 3.67

Maintenance of public toilets 3.27▲ 2.93

Footpaths and cycleways 3.30 3.24

Libraries 3.83▼ 4.11

Parks, reserves and playgrounds 3.80▲ 3.65

Tourism marketing 3.60 3.51

Lifeguards 4.14▲ 3.98

Cultural facilities 3.34▼ 3.64

Economic development 3.20▲ 3.04

Enforcement of local building regulations 3.28▲ 3.09

Enforcement of pet regulations 3.47▲ 3.16

Council Pools 3.69 3.71

Development application processing 3.06 2.96

Sporting facilities 3.94 3.92

Community facilities 3.48 NA

Online services such as the website 3.51 3.55

Creation or attraction of cultural and sporting events 3.79▼ 3.94

Scale: 1 = Nat all satisfied, 5 = very satisfied▲▼= A significantly higher level of satisfaction (by year)

Appendix A:Additional Analyses

83

Importance & SatisfactionThe following table shows the hierarchy of the 26 services/facilities ranked by the top 2 box importance ratings, as well as residents’ corresponding top 3 box satisfaction ratings. The service/facility ranked most important by residents is ‘waste and recycling’, with a top 2 box importance score

of 95%. For the most part, the majority of services/facilities provided by Coffs Harbour City Council are considered highly important, with only 4 measures falling below a 70% T2B rating.

Waste and recycling 95% 77%Parks, reserves and playgrounds 94% 91%Protection of the natural environment 94% 84%Lifeguards 92% 91%Cleanliness of streets 91% 91%Storm water/flood management 91% 87%Economic development 88% 77%Water supply 87% 93%Maintenance of sealed roads 87% 78%Sewerage 86% 95%Sporting facilities 86% 93%Footpaths and cycleways 85% 77%Maintenance of public toilets 84% 77%Coastal management, including erosion and sea level rise 82% 83%Community facilities 81% 85%Maintenance of bridges 80% 95%Creation or attraction of cultural and sporting events 80% 90%Enforcement of local building regulations 78% 79%Council Pools 75% 87%Development application processing 75% 68%Tourism marketing 74% 87%Enforcement of pet regulations 71% 82%Online services such as the website 66% 87%Cultural facilities 66% 79%Libraries 65% 88%Maintenance of unsealed roads 57% 72%

Importance T2BService/Facility(Ranked by importance)

Satisfaction T3B

84

Performance Gap AnalysisWhen analysing performance gap data, it is important to consider both stated satisfaction and the absolute size of the performance gap.

Performance Gap Ranking

Service/Facility Importance T2 Box Satisfaction T3 BoxPerformance Gap

(Importance –Satisfaction)

Waste and recycling 95% 77% 18%Economic development 88% 77% 11%Protection of the natural environment 94% 84% 10%Maintenance of sealed roads 87% 78% 9%Footpaths and cycleways 85% 77% 8%Maintenance of public toilets 84% 77% 7%Development application processing 75% 68% 7%Storm water/flood management 91% 87% 4%Parks, reserves and playgrounds 94% 91% 3%Lifeguards 92% 91% 1%Cleanliness of streets 91% 91% 0%Coastal management 82% 83% -1%Enforcement of local building regulations 78% 79% -1%Community facilities 81% 85% -4%Water supply 87% 93% -6%Sporting facilities 86% 93% -7%Sewerage 86% 95% -9%Creation or attraction of cultural and sporting

events80% 90% -10%

Enforcement of pet regulations 71% 82% -11%Council Pools 75% 87% -12%Tourism marketing 74% 87% -13%Cultural facilities 66% 79% -13%Maintenance of bridges 80% 95% -15%Maintenance of unsealed roads 57% 72% -15%Online services such as the website 66% 87% -21%Libraries 65% 88% -23%

85

Influence on Overall SatisfactionThe chart below summarises the influence of the 27 facilities/services on overall satisfaction with Council’s performance,

based on the Shapley Regression:

39.1%

10.7%

4.5%

4.0%

3.4%

3.3%

3.2%

3.2%

3.0%

2.9%

2.9%

2.6%

2.6%

2.2%

1.9%

1.7%

1.3%

1.3%

1.1%

1.1%

0.9%

0.9%

0.7%

0.5%

0.3%

0.2%

0.2%

0% 15% 30% 45%

Council's level of communication with the community

Waste and recycling




Council Pools

Tourism marketing

Coastal management







Sewerage

Sporting facilities

Water supply

Cultural facilities

Community facilities






Lifeguards


Libraries

86

Comparison to the Micromex LGA Benchmark - ImportanceThe table below shows the variance between Coffs Harbour City Council’s top 2 box importance scores and the Micromex LGA Benchmark. We can see that for 19 of the comparable services/facilities, residents’ top 2 box scores are higher than, or equal to the Benchmark score. For those

that are lower than Benchmark norms, 1 service, ‘maintenance of unsealed roads’, experienced a variance of ≥10%.

Service/Facility





score

Variance


Protection of the natural environment 94% 80% 14%▲

Community facilities 81% 67% 14%▲

Parks, reserves and playgrounds 94% 83% 11%▲

Storm water/flood management 91% 81% 10%▲

Sporting facilities 86% 76% 10%▲

Creation or attraction of cultural and sporting events 80% 70% 10%▲


Cultural facilities 66% 58% 8%

Sewerage 86% 80% 6%

Waste and recycling 95% 90% 5%

Council Pools 75% 70% 5%

Online services such as the website 66% 61% 5%

Note: Benchmark differences are based on assumed variants of +/- 10%, with variants beyond +/- 10% more likely to be significant▲/▼ = positive/negative difference equal to/greater than 10% from Benchmark.

87

Comparison to the Micromex LGA Benchmark - Importance

Service/Facility





score

Variance

Footpaths and cycleways 85% 81% 4%

Development application processing 75% 71% 4%

Lifeguards 92% 90% 2%


Enforcement of pet regulations 71% 70% 1%

Water supply 87% 87% 0%

Tourism marketing 74% 76% -2%

Enforcement of local building regulations 78% 81% -3%

Coastal management, including erosion and sea level rise 82% 87% -5%

Libraries 65% 70% -5%

Maintenance of sealed roads 87% 93% -6%

Maintenance of unsealed roads 57% 77% -20%▼

Note: Benchmark differences are based on assumed variants of +/- 10%, with variants beyond +/- 10% more likely to be significant▲/▼ = positive/negative difference equal to/greater than 10% from Benchmark.

88

Comparison to the Micromex LGA Benchmark - SatisfactionThe table below shows the variance between Coffs Harbour City Council’s top 3 box satisfaction scores and the Micromex LGA Benchmark. We can see that for 18 of the comparable services/facilities, residents’ top 3 box scores are higher than, or equal to the Benchmark score. For those

that are lower than Benchmark norms, 2 services, ‘cultural facilities’, and ‘waste and recycling’, experienced a variance of ≥10%.

Service/Facility





score

Variance

Maintenance of sealed roads 78% 58% 20%▲

Maintenance of unsealed roads 72% 55% 17%▲


Enforcement of local building regulations 79% 68% 11%▲

Footpaths and cycleways 77% 67% 10%▲

Storm water/flood management 87% 78% 9%


Water supply 93% 87% 6%

Parks, reserves and playgrounds 91% 86% 5%

Sewerage 95% 91% 4%

Sporting facilities 93% 90% 3%

Tourism marketing 87% 84% 3%


Note: Benchmark differences are based on assumed variants of +/- 10%, with variants beyond +/- 10% more likely to be significant▲/▼ = positive/negative difference equal to/greater than 10% from Benchmark

89

Comparison to the Micromex LGA Benchmark - Satisfaction

Service/Facility





score

Variance

Creation or attraction of cultural and sporting events 90% 88% 2%

Council Pools 87% 85% 2%

Online services such as the website 87% 85% 2%

Enforcement of pet regulations 82% 81% 1%

Lifeguards 91% 91% 0%

Development application processing 68% 69% -1%

Protection of the natural environment 84% 86% -2%

Community facilities 85% 88% -3%

Coastal management, including erosion and sea level rise 83% 88% -5%

Libraries 88% 95% -7%

Cultural facilities 79% 91% -12%▼

Waste and recycling 77% 89% -12%▼

Note: Benchmark differences are based on assumed variants of +/- 10%, with variants beyond +/- 10% more likely to be significant▲/▼ = positive/negative difference equal to/greater than 10% from Benchmark

90

Reasons for Level of Overall SatisfactionQ5a. Overall, how satisfied are you with the performance of Council, not just on one or two issues, but across all responsibility areas?


Very satisfied/Satisfied (51%) N=504

Happy with Council/they do a good job e.g. communication, management 25%

Council can always improve e.g. management, communications, infrastructure, events 19%

Good services & facilities/visible improvements in the area 7%

Against development of the Cultural Centre 4%

Area is clean/well maintained 2%

Great place to live/close to family 1%

New to the area, still finding out what is available <1%


Somewhat Satisfied (31%)

Room for improvements e.g. development, cleanliness of the area, bringing back kerbside collections 14%

Poor decision making and planning/communication/consultation from Council 13%

Against developments, particularly the Cultural Centre 6%

Council do a good job/good services/facilities in the area 4%

Better financial management for Council 2%

Rates are too high 1%

Would like to see more arts/cultural events and activities 1%

Unhappy with the performance of Council staff <1%

Do not feel safe in the area <1%

Nice community to live in <1%


91

Reasons for Level of Overall SatisfactionQ5a. Overall, how satisfied are you with the performance of Council, not just on one or two issues, but across all responsibility areas?


Not all Satisfied/Not Very Satisfied (18%) N=504

Unhappy with Council e.g. management, communication and budgeting 17%

Against the development of the Cultural Centre 4%

Need for increased town maintenance/facilities e.g. pools, roads, footpaths 4%

Rates are too high/lower the rates 2%

Want waste services continued e.g. kerbside pickups 1%

Improve environmental conservation <1%

Need more/improved tourist attractions <1%

92

Better Assisting the CommunityQ1. What do you believe Council could do in order to better assist our community over the coming months of COVID-19 or in other times of local emergency or

disaster?

N=504 N=504

Support the community e.g. rate cuts, supporting local business

10%Create a recovery plan for things like

employment2%

Stop building new Cultural Centre 10% Aligning with state/federal governments 1%

Keep waste services open/increase garbage collection during this time

10% Council should provide sanitation stations 1%

Improved communication/provision of information/consultation

8% Ensuring access to medical services/facilities 1%

Policing COVID rules/restrictions 7%Council should be more proactive about

climate change<1%

Council is doing well/can't do much/The issue is beyond Council

6% Improved public transport <1%

Be better prepared in future for emergency events e.g. floods, fires

4% Less backpackers <1%

Better Council management e.g. budgeting, staffing, development priorities

4%Making sure that donations are received from

Red Cross<1%

Continue Council services e.g. maintenance, cleaning, upgrades

4% Monitoring unleashed pets more closely <1%

While things are quiet work on roads/supporting infrastructure

4% New Council building should go ahead <1%

Ease the restrictions of COVID - 19 e.g. for exercise, small business

3% Water supply <1%

Support for the vulnerable/essential workers 3% Don't know/nothing 40%

93

Most Valued Aspect of Living in Coffs HarbourQ2a. What do you value most about living in the Coffs Harbour City Council region?

N=504 N=504

Natural environment/beauty of the beaches and mountains

48% Business/employment/education opportunities the area offers

2%

Lifestyle/atmosphere e.g. quiet, relaxed, rural, coastal

21% Limited traffic/not congested 2%

Central location/proximity to beaches, services and facilities

18% Affordability of the area 1%

Weather and climate 18% Tourism 1%

Community feel e.g. friendly, family area 13% Underdeveloped nature of the area 1%

Availability of good quality services/facilities/activities

12% Build the bypass <1%

I have always lived here/it is home/nice area 7% Do not like the area/too many tourists/homeless

<1%

A well maintained area e.g. clean, good roads, upgrades

4% Safe area/low crime <1%

A well managed Council e.g., budgeting, support, planning

2% Don't know/nothing 1%

94

Highest Priority IssuesQ2b. Thinking of the next 10 years, what do you believe will be the highest priority issues within the Coffs Harbour City Council region?

N=504 N=504Maintaining/improving roads 18% Education opportunities/facilities 1%General town maintenance including updated

infrastructure, development and cleanliness in the area

17% Homeless population 1%

Completion of bypass 15% Supporting the local community 1%Improved Council management e.g. budgeting,

communications, planning13% Traffic congestion/management 1%

Employment/business opportunities 12% Availability of land <1%Improved/additional footpaths/cycleways 9% Ban fires on beaches <1%Waste services/management 9% Better signage <1%Against building of the Cultural Centre 8% Disability access <1%Managing population growth 7% Everything is a priority <1%Need for additional/better services/facilities 7% Focus on cultural aspects of the city <1%Cost of living in the area e.g. rates, affordability of

housing6% Get things back to normal <1%

Developing an entertainment/sporting centre 6% Happy with things <1%Promoting tourism 6% Improved electricity <1%Public transport 5% Improved NBN/internet <1%Protecting the natural environment and coastline 4% Inclusivity within the community <1%Health care services/facilities 3% Keep the calm atmosphere <1%Overdevelopment 3% Limit the amount of blueberry farms <1%Safety/security e.g. drug usage, crime rate 3% More local talent <1%Services/facilities for the elderly and disadvantaged

people3% Need a youth centre <1%

Water supply/management 3% Not to become another Byron/Gold Coast <1%Kerbing and guttering 2% Open beach access <1%

Provision of housing 2%Pool has changed hands and do not like quality

of services<1%

Availability of parking 1% Renting with pets <1%Developing the airport/increased flights in and out of

the area1% Don't know/nothing 7%

95


Overall 2020 Male Female 18-34 35 – 49 50 – 64 65+


15% 13% 17% 15% 11% 16% 19%

Development application 13% 17% 10% 8% 20% 17% 4%▼

Water, sewage 9% 9% 8% 8% 6% 11% 8%

Vegetation and trees 9% 8% 9% 4% 7% 7% 16%▲

Rates inquiry 8% 8% 9% 4% 7% 11% 10%

Ranger matters 8% 5% 10% 7% 9% 9% 6%

Road and footpath improvements 5% 6% 5% 8% 4% 2% 8%

Drainage problem 3% 3% 2% 4% 2% 2% 3%

Water billing 3% 2% 3% 8%▲ 3% 0% 0%

Sporting facilities 2% 2% 1% 0% 7%▲ 0% 0%

Community development enquiries 2% 3% 1% 4% 1% 0% 2%

Business/economic development enquiries 2% 2% 2% 4% 1% 0% 3%

Building inspection inquiries 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 2% 0%

Other parks and gardens 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0%

Cultural facilities 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 3%▲

Traffic management/parking 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 2% 0%

Community facilities <1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%

Road or bridge closures <1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Septic tanks <1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0%

Can’t recall 3% 4% 1% 7% 0% 4% 0%

Other 17% 15% 19% 18% 18% 16% 16%

Base 225 103 122 46 58 69 52



Results by Demographics

96



RatepayerNon-

ratepayerUp to 10

yearsMore than 10

yearsUrban Rural


13% 27% 21% 14% 14% 14%

Development application 13% 12% 7% 14% 9% 23%▲Water, sewage 9% 6% 4% 10% 8% 7%Vegetation and trees 9% 5% 13% 8% 10% 4%Rates inquiry 10% 0% 9% 8% 9% 9%Ranger matters 9% 0% 13% 7% 8% 7%Road and footpath improvements 5% 2% 5% 5% 4% 8%Drainage problem 3% 2% 0% 3% 3% 3%Water billing 2% 5% 4% 2% 4% 0%Sporting facilities 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0%Community development enquiries 1% 6% 0% 2% 2% 0%Business/economic development enquiries 2% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2%Building inspection inquiries 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0%Other parks and gardens 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0%Cultural facilities 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0%Traffic management/parking 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0%Community facilities 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%Road or bridge closures 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Septic tanks 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%Can’t recall 1% 9% 0% 3% 3% 0%Other 16% 25% 22% 16% 17% 20%Base 187 36 35 188 161 46




97

Reasons for Contacting CouncilQ8a. (If yes on Q6) Thinking about your most recent enquiry, what was that contact regarding?

Other specified Count

Disapproval of new buildings 6

Animal registration 5

Neighbour complaints 3

Organising a grave plaque 3

Water restrictions/licenses 3

Development of the Cultural Centre 2

Fishing inquiry 2

Graffiti 2

Health inspection 2

Powerlines 2

To get the correct email address 2

Backpackers 1

Beach access 1

Billing issues 1

Employment 1

Fence violations 1

Fire safety inquiry 1

Nelson St Nursery 1

Noise complaint 1

Solar farm 1

Other Specified Responses

98

Resolution of the IssueQ8b. (If yes on Q6) And regarding that matter, how many times did you need to contact Council to have your issue resolved?


Overall 2020 Male Female 18-34 35 – 49 50 – 64 65+

Once 45% 43% 46% 56% 41% 43% 40%

Twice 15% 13% 17% 22% 17% 9% 16%

Three times 10% 11% 8% 0%▼ 11% 13% 12%

Four or more times 5% 5% 5% 7% 1% 8% 3%

Not yet resolved 26% 27% 25% 15% 29% 27% 29%

Mean 1.7 2.59 2.45 2.04 2.61 2.67 2.64

Base 225 103 122 46 58 69 52



yearsUrban Rural

Once 43% 57% 35% 47% 45% 35%

Twice 17%▲ 2% 17% 15% 17% 13%

Three times 10% 10% 19%▲ 8% 9% 10%

Four or more times 5% 4% 2% 5% 4% 9%

Not yet resolved 25% 28% 27% 25% 24% 35%

Mean 2.52 2.44 2.68 2.48 2.45 2.96

Base 187 36 35 188 161 46


99

Preferred Communication MethodsQ10. In the future which of the following channels would you like to receive information about Council?



Local newspaper 75% 73% 76% 74% 67%▼ 71% 85%▲

Radio 73% 69% 76% 75% 80%▲ 78% 60%▼

Council website 63% 59% 66% 71% 72%▲ 73%▲ 38%▼

TV 61% 60% 62% 64% 68% 55% 60%

Community organisations/groups 54% 50% 57% 57% 63%▲ 47% 50%

Council community centres 53% 48% 57% 60% 54% 50% 48%

Facebook 49% 40% 56%▲ 83%▲ 68%▲ 39%▼ 13%▼

Libraries 45% 37% 52%▲ 49% 44% 42% 45%

Council e-Newsletter 44% 40% 47% 44% 50% 45% 38%

Email 44% 44% 44% 45% 53%▲ 41% 39%

Online platforms (e.g. Have Your Say)

43% 38% 47% 55%▲ 55%▲ 44% 21%▼

Brochures/flyers 36% 34% 37% 25% 34% 34% 48%▲

Instagram 20% 17% 23% 41%▲ 32%▲ 12%▼ 2%▼

Twitter 14% 12% 14% 21% 25%▲ 10% 2%▼

LinkedIn 8% 9% 8% 10% 15%▲ 8% 1%▼

Other 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 3% 4%

Base 504 241 263 115 114 138 136


100

Preferred Communication MethodsQ10. In the future which of the following channels would you like to receive information about Council?

Results by DemographicsRatepayer status Time lived in the area Location type

RatepayerNon-

ratepayerUp to 10

yearsMore than

10 yearsUrban Rural

Local newspaper 72% 83% 69% 76% 77% 73%

Radio 70% 82% 74% 73% 73% 72%

Council website 61% 72% 76%▲ 61% 64% 63%

TV 55% 83%▲ 61% 61% 61% 65%

Community organisations/groups 51% 64% 60% 53% 53% 55%

Council community centres 49% 69%▲ 51% 53% 52% 53%

Facebook 42% 74%▲ 67%▲ 46% 48% 49%

Libraries 42% 56%▲ 42% 45% 45% 45%

Council e-Newsletter 42% 51% 62%▲ 41% 44% 48%

Email 47%▲ 32% 46% 43% 42% 50%

Online platforms (e.g. Have Your Say) 40% 54%▲ 42% 43% 43% 42%

Brochures/flyers 36% 36% 39% 35% 33% 44%

Instagram 16% 36%▲ 29% 19% 22% 17%

Twitter 10% 25%▲ 18% 13% 14% 15%

LinkedIn 7% 11% 13% 7% 7% 12%

Other 2% 1% 0% 2% 1% 3%

Base 392 107 72 430 376 93


Appendix B:Further Demographics

102

DemographicsQA3. Which residential suburb or town do you live in or nearest to?

N=504 N=504

Coffs Harbour/Diggers Beach 38% Nana Glen 2%

Woolgoolga 8% North Boambee Valley 2%

Toormina/Bayldon 7% Sapphire 2%

Boambee East 5% Coramba 1%

Bonville 5% Karangi 1%

Boambee 4% Mullaway 1%

Sawtell 4% Orara Valley/Upper Orara/Dairyville 1%

Corindi/Upper Corindi 3% Red Rock 1%

Sandy Beach 3% Safety Beach 1%

Arrawarra 2% Ulong/Lowanna 1%

Emerald Beach/Emerald Heights 2% Bucca/Lower Bucca/Central Bucca <1%

Korora 2% Bundagen <1%

Moonee 2%

Appendix C: Questionnaire

104

105

106

The information contained herein is believed to be reliable and accurate, however, no guarantee is given as to its accuracy and reliability, and no responsibility or liability for any information, opinions or commentary contained herein, or

for any consequences of its use, will be accepted by Micromex Research, or by any person involved in the preparation of this report.

Telephone: (02) 4352 2388Web: www.micromex.com.au Email: [email protected]

report - coffs harbour - community research - july 2020...1 1 $ vljqlilfdqwo\ kljkhu orzhu ohyho ri...

Documents