Transcript Slide 1

Holroyd City Council
Special Rate Variation Research
Prepared by: Micromex Research
Date: December 2013
Background
Background & Objective
Background
Holroyd City Council is facing the challenge of balancing community expectations with future
financial sustainability, and as such has determined that it needs to apply for a special rate
variation in order to fund future services, facilities, programs and initiatives for its residents.
Research Objectives
As part of the application process, Holroyd City Council requested Micromex Research conduct
a robust community research survey in order to:
1.
Measure community support for the introduction of a special rate levy
2.
Provide an avenue for feedback in order for residents to express their views on the proposed
SRV
3
Interviewing & Sample Size Implications
Interviewing
A random telephone survey of 400 residents was conducted between 23rd and 27th November
2013.
Interviewing was conducted in accordance with IQCA (Interviewer Quality Control Australia)
Standards and the Market Research Society Code of Professional Conduct. Where applicable,
the issues in each question were systematically rearranged for each respondent.
Sampling Size Implication
A random community sample size of 400 provides a maximum sampling error of plus or minus
4.9% at 95% confidence.
This means that if the survey was replicated with a new universe of n=400 Holroyd residents,
that 19 times out of 20 we would expect to see the same results, i.e. +/- 4.9%.
Therefore the research findings documented in this report should be interpreted by Holroyd
Council and IPART as not just the opinions of 400 residents, but as an accurate and robust
measure of the entire Holroyd community’s attitudes.
4
Questionnaire Flow
• The questionnaire, of approximately 5 minutes in duration, was designed to establish current
attitudes and explore community response to the proposed resource strategies
Questionnaire Structure
QA.
Before we start, I would like to check whether you or an immediate
Q7.
family member works for Holroyd City Council?
Prior to this call were you aware that Council is potentially
seeking to make an application for a special rate variation?
Q1.
In which suburb do you live?
Q8.
How were you informed of the Special Rate Variation?
Q2.
How satisfied are you with the quality of infrastructure, such as
Q9.
Based on what you have been told, how important do you
Q3.
Q4.
buildings, roads, footpaths and parks, currently provided by Council in
believe it is that Holroyd City Council is allowed to introduce
the local area?
this special rates variation?
How satisfied are you with the level of services currently provided by
Q10. Please stop me when I read out your age bracket:
Council in the local area?
Q11. Which of the following best describes the house where you
How important do you believe it is for Council to implement programs
that will provide better infrastructure?
READ CONCEPT
Q5.
How supportive are you of Council proceeding with this special rate
variation?
Q6.
are currently living?
Q12. Do you live in a :
Q13. Which of the following best describes your current
employment status?
Q12. Gender
Why do you say that?
The questionnaire was developed in conjunction with Council staff
5
How To Interpret Rating Scores
Ratings questions
The Unipolar Scale of 1 to 5 was used in all rating questions, where 1 was the lowest
importance, satisfaction or support and 5 the highest importance, satisfaction or
support
This scale allowed for a mid range position for those who had a divided or neutral
opinion.
1.99 or lower
2.00 – 2.49
2.50 – 2.99
3.00 – 3.59
3.60 – 3.89
3.90 – 4.19
4.20 – 4.49
4.50 +
‘Very low’ level of importance/satisfaction/support
‘Low’ level of importance/satisfaction/support
‘Moderately low’ level of importance/satisfaction/support
‘Moderate’ level of importance/satisfaction/support
‘Moderately high’ level of importance/satisfaction/support
‘High’ level of importance/satisfaction/support
‘Very high’ level of importance/satisfaction/support
‘Extreme’ level of importance/satisfaction/support
6
Sample Profile
Sample Profile
Gender
Male
49%
Female
51%
Age
18-34
36%
35-49
28%
50-64
21%
65+
16%
Ratepayer status
Ratepayers
80%
Non-ratepayers
20%
Years lived in the area
Less than 6 months
1%
6 months - 2 years
1%
3 - 5 years
12%
6 - 10 years
23%
11 - 20 years
21%
More than 20 years
42%
Employment status
Work full time outside the Holroyd LGA
36%
Unemployed/Pensioner
15%
Work part time outside the Holroyd LGA
13%
Retired
10%
Work full time in the Holroyd LGA
Base: n=400
9%
Home duties
7%
Work part time in the Holroyd LGA
6%
Student
3%
Other
2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
The sample has been weighted to reflect ABS Census data
100%
8
90% Of Residents Are At Least Somewhat
Satisfied With Infrastructure Provided By Council
Q.
How satisfied are you with the quality of infrastructure currently provided by Council in the local area?
Very satisfied
18%
Satisfied
55%
Somewhat satisfied
17%
Mean
ratings
Male
Female
Own
Rent
3.78
3.77
3.73
3.94
Overall: 3.77
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
3.82
3.53▼
3.76
4.10▲
Scale: 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfied
Not very satisfied
▲▼ = significantly higher/lower level(by group)
6%
Not at all satisfied
4%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Base: n=400
Those aged 65+ are significantly more satisfied with the quality
of infrastructure currently provided than were those aged 35-49
9
93% Of Residents Are At Least Somewhat
Satisfied With The Level Of Services Currently
Provided By Council
Q.
How satisfied are you with the level of services currently provided by Council in the local area?
Very satisfied
17%
Satisfied
55%
Mean
ratings
Somewhat satisfied
21%
Not very satisfied
Female
Own
Rent
3.76
3.83
3.78
3.85
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
3.75▼
3.61▼
3.86
4.15▲
Overall: 3.79
Scale: 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfied
5%
Not at all satisfied
Male
▲▼ = significantly higher/lower level(by group)
2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Base: n=400
Those aged 65+ were significantly more satisfied with the level
of service currently provided than were those aged 18-49
10
98% Of Residents Believe It Is At Least Somewhat
Important For Council To Implement Programs That
Will Provide Better Infrastructure And Services
Q.
How important do you believe it is for Council to implement programs that will provide better infrastructure and services?
Very important
60%
Important
32%
Somewhat important
Mean
ratings
6%
Not very important
1%
Male
Female
Own
Rent
4.36▼
4.62▲
4.46
4.61
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
4.50
4.50
4.46
4.49
Overall: 4.49
Scale: 1 = not at all important, 5 = very important
▲▼ = significantly higher/lower level (by group)
Not at all important
1%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Base: n=400
A very small minority do not believe it is important for Council to
implement programs that will provide better infrastructure and
services
11
Funding Options
SRV Concept Statement
Read statement:
Council is facing the challenge of balancing community expectations with future financial
sustainability. Council is experiencing a growing gap between the cost of providing services
and facilities and the available funding to meet those costs. This position is as a result of a long
term ‘cap’ on Council’s ability to increase rates; costs rising more than CPI (especially in areas
like construction) and the City’s increasing growth.
Council has consulted with the community and has identified 3 potential options to deal with
this growing funding gap. Those three options are:
Option 1 - Decline in Service (Decline in services and maintain rates)
Option 2 - Maintain Service (Maintain services, increase rates)
Option 3 - Improve Service (Improve services, increase rates)
Residents were read this before being asked for their level of support
13
Decline In Service
Option 1:
No rate increase above the State Restricted Level of around 3% which in effect would lead to a
reduction in services and/or infrastructure. Based on an expected annual increase of around 3%,
residential ratepayers would pay on average around $38 more each year. This is an average
annual charge of $1,431 (or a quarterly charge of $358) by 2019/2020.
Under this option savings could include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reduced opening hours or possible closure of facilities including pools, libraries, etc.
Reduced maintenance of sporting facilities, parks and gardens
Reduced maintenance of roads, footpaths, cycleways and drains
Reduced environmental programs (e.g. weed removal and native vegetation programs)
Longer processing times for customer requests, applications and permits.
Fewer community events
Less funds for community sponsorship and economic development
Large increases in user fees and charges
Residents were read this before being asked for their level of support
14
Just Over ½ The Residents Are Supportive Of
Option 1 – Decline Service
Q.
How supportive are you of Council proceeding with this option?
Very supportive
9%
Supportive
26%
Mean
ratings
Somewhat supportive
21%
Not very supportive
Female
Own
Rent
2.97▲
2.60▼
2.75
2.89
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
2.77
2.65
2.76
3.02
Overall: 2.78
Scale: 1 = not at all supportive, 5 = very supportive
23%
Not at all supportive
Male
▲▼ = significantly higher/lower level (by group)
21%
0%
10%
20%
30%
Base: n=400
Only 9% of residents are very supportive of this option
15
Maintain Service
Option 2:
Increase rates by 9% for 4 years and 8% for 1 year. Maintain our services and renew our current
infrastructure. Residential ratepayers would pay on average around $85 more each year over
this 5 year period. This is would mean that by 2019/2020 the average annual rate charge would
be $1,711 (or a quarterly charge of $428)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Maintaining opening hours and programs at pools, libraries, although no new facilities would
be constructed
Maintenance of sporting facilities, parks and gardens would remain as is, with no increase to
mowing, planting or maintenance
Construction of roads, footpaths, cycleways and drains would be maintained
Environmental programs would be retained (e.g. weed removal and native vegetation
programs)
Processing times for customer requests, applications and permits would remain the same
Community events would be maintained, but not expanded
Funding of community sponsorship and Economic Development would be maintained
Residents were read this before being asked for their level of support
16
Almost ¾ Of Residents Are At Least Somewhat
Supportive Of Option 2 – Maintain Service
Q.
How supportive are you of Council proceeding with this option?
Very supportive
11%
Supportive
32%
Somewhat supportive
Mean
ratings
30%
Not very supportive
12%
Male
Female
Own
Rent
3.05
3.12
3.04
3.28
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
3.25▲
2.79▼
3.12
3.20
Overall: 3.09
Scale: 1 = not at all supportive, 5 = very supportive
▲▼ = significantly higher/lower level (by group)
Not at all supportive
16%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Base: n=400
Those aged 18-34 were significantly more supportive of
Option 2 – Maintain Service than were those aged 35-49
17
Enhance Services
Option 3:
Enhanced Services. Under this option rates would increase by 9% for 6 years, which would provide
for our services to be maintained, current infrastructure renewed and new services and/or
infrastructure developed. Residential ratepayers would pay on average around $98 more each
year over this 6 year period. This would mean that by 2019/2020 the average annual rate charge
would be $1,790 (or a quarterly charge of $448).
In addition to maintaining all current service levels this option would enable Council to provide
the community new additional or enhanced services and infrastructure that could include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Improve condition of standard of assets such as roads, footpaths, cycleways and drains,
sporting grounds, parks and gardens in a shorter timeframe
Processing times for customers making requests, lodging applications, seeking permits, etc.,
would be improved
Delivery of new and enhanced services in consultation with the community
New capital works projects built and managed such as buildings, sporting facilities and
playgrounds
Hyland Road Sporting Complex fully implemented in a shorter timeframe
Improve condition of standards of existing assets
Increase allocation of parking in town centres
Residents were read this before being asked for their level of support
18
66% Of Residents Are At Least
Somewhat Supportive Of Option 3 - Enhance
Q.
How supportive are you of Council proceeding with this option?
Very supportive
18%
Supportive
24%
Mean
ratings
Somewhat supportive
24%
Male
Female
Own
Rent
3.07
3.10
2.98▼
3.54▲
Overall: 3.09
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
3.56▲
2.85▼
2.77▼
2.87▼
Scale: 1 = not at all supportive, 5 = very supportive
Not very supportive
17%
Not at all supportive
17%
0%
10%
20%
▲▼ = significantly higher/lower level (by group)
30%
Base: n=400
Non-ratepayers are significantly more supportive of this
Option than are ratepayers
19
Option 2 – Maintain Services Is The Most Preferred
Option With 40% Of Residents Selecting This As Their
First Preference
Q.
Please rank the 3 options in order of preference:
Mean
ratings
Maintain services, increase rates (40%)
Option 2 - Maintain services
40%
Option 3 - Enhance services
50%
35%
27%
10%
1.70
2.03
38%
Services and facilities need to be maintained
15%
Happy to pay an increase to see the area maintained
6%
Enhance services, increase rates (35%)
Services and facilities need improvement
21%
Decline in services and maintain rates (26%)
Option 1 - Decline in services
26%
0%
23%
20%
40%
1
2.26
52%
60%
2
80%
Can not afford a rate increase
15%
Council need to find alternative funding
6%
100%
3
Base: n=400
The majority recognise that there needs to be some
investment into the services and facilities offered in the LGA
20
Option 2 – Maintain Services (40%)
Q.
What is your reason for choosing that option as your highest preference?
“Services need to be
maintained for the increasing
the population”
“The area is already better than most other surrounding
Councils and it doesn't need much improvement, but I
don't want services to deteriorate in the area”
“It is financially, a better
option for most people in
the area”
“Council needs to be more efficient
with how funds are spent”
“I am happy to pay a slight
increase to see the area
maintained”
“Council needs to maintain current
services without too high a rate
increase”
“The community needs services to be maintained
so they don't go backwards”
“Council needs to maintain services but ensure extra
funding is spent in the right areas”
21
Option 3 – Enhance Services (35%)
Q.
What is your reason for choosing that option as your highest preference?
“It will be a greater benefit to the community as
the local area has to be sustainable”
“Everything needs to be improved
and I don't mind paying a little
more for this”
“This allows for new projects and
developments in the area”
“It creates jobs for people within
the community”
“Growth is required so services don't go
backwards”
“If no one pays for a rate increase then
nothing will get done and everything will
decline”
“Rates are going to increase regardless so
I would prefer to see improved services in
the area as a result of a rate increase”
22
Option 1 – Decline In Services (26%)
Q.
What is your reason for choosing that option as your highest preference?
“Both Council and residents need to
contribute to maintaining services and
infrastructure”
“Council has given no guarantee that older, more established
areas will benefit from the rate increase”
“Council are not spending current
funds wisely and need to review
this”
“I can not afford a rate increase”
“I don’t believe Council would
make any changes even with
higher rates”
“As the area is growing Council are
getting more funding”
“I already pay enough in rates each year
and am not being provided with decent
infrastructure or services”
23
42% Of Residents Were Aware Of Council
Potentially Applying For An SRV
Q.
Prior to this call were you aware that Council is potentially seeking to make application for a special rate variation?
Those aged 35-65+ more likely than those
aged 18-34
No
58%
Yes
42%
Males more likely than females
Ratepayers more likely than non-ratepayers
Base: n=400
Not surprisingly, ratepayers are more aware
24
Conclusion
Conclusion
Residents have strong levels of satisfaction with the current levels of servicing and
facilities provided by Council.
Residents indicated they believe it is highly important that Council continues to
improve facilities and services. As such, it is of little surprise that residents are generally
supportive of a rate increase of some type.
1.
2.
Residents were most supportive of Option 2 – Maintain Services and Increase
Rates

73% of residents were at least ‘somewhat supportive’ of Holroyd Council
proceeding with Option 2

66% of residents were at least ‘somewhat supportive’ of Holroyd Council
proceeding with Option 3
Overall, residents preferred Option 2 – Maintain Services and Increase Rates

40% of residents selected Option 2 as their most preferred option

35% of residents selected Option 3 as their most preferred option
These outcomes indicate that the community wants to be able to
invest in ensuring the quality of services and infrastructure is at least
maintained
26
Telephone: (02) 4352 2388 Fax: (02) 4352 2117
Web: www.micromex.com.au
Email: [email protected]