COMMUNITY SURVEY 2016 RESEARCH REPORTamrshire.wa.gov.au/library/file/0Publications/Documents CEO/AMRS… · COMMUNITY SURVEY 2016 RESEARCH REPORT 1 June 2016 Principal Consultant:

COMMUNITY SURVEY 2016

RESEARCH REPORT

1

June 2016

Principal Consultant: Matt Crinyion BSc, MMSRS Advantage Communications – Research 1st Floor 284 Fitzgerald Street, Perth WA 6000 Ph; (08) 9328 4433

Research Methodology & Reporting Notes • The Shire of Augusta-Margaret River (Shire) commissioned

Advantage Communications -Research to undertake a community consultation survey amongst its ratepayers to collect community feedback in respect to its performance in the delivery of its services. A similar survey was last undertaken in 2013.

• The survey comprised a self-completion questionnaire mailed to 4000 residential and business ratepayers (both owner occupiers and absentee owners) randomly selected from the Shire’s rate roll.

• A total of 754 usable questionnaires (19% response) were returned directly in reply paid envelopes for data entry and analysis (similar to the 756 questionnaires returned in 2013).

2

Research Methodology & Reporting Notes

• The results from the survey provide the Shire with performance ratings for 12 Shire corporate image areas, as well as importance and performance ratings across 57 Shire service areas.

• The 12 Corporate Image areas are divided into four categories – Shire Staff, Shire’s Image, Elected Shire Councillors and Value for Money.

• The 57 Shire service areas are divided into 14 categories grouped under 5 broad headings – Infrastructure, Health and Environment, Recreation, Economic Development and Community & Information.

3

Research Methodology & Reporting Notes

Corporate Image Areas Shire Staff Shire’s Image Elected Shire Councillors Value for Money

4

Service Areas INFRASTRUCTURE RECREATION 1.Engineering Services 8.Public Open Space 2.Traffic Services 9.Sporting Services 3.Planning & Building 10.Cultural Services HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 4.Public Health 11.Economic Development 5.Waste Management COMMUNITY & INFORMATION 6.Ranger Services 12.Community Development 7.Environmental Protection 13.Community Safety

14.Information Services

Research Methodology & Reporting Notes • Respondents were asked to rate each Specific Service Area on

a scale of 1 to 4, firstly indicating the importance of that service and then their satisfaction with the current level of the Shire’s performance.

• For the Corporate Image Areas, respondents were asked to simply indicate their level of satisfaction.

• In addition the survey provided an opportunity to include a number of questions to pick up emerging issues and themes.

5

Research Methodology & Reporting Notes • The results for the specific service areas show net percentage

importance and performance ratings (the proportion of respondents who indicated very important or essential and satisfied or very satisfied for each specific service area) as well as a mean score out of a possible 4 for each. The difference between importance and performance means has been recorded as the performance gap.

• In this report, net percentage ratings and mean rating scores are calculated using only those respondents who have answered any given question.

6

Research Methodology & Reporting Notes • Based on the Shire’s population, this response of 754 surveys

gives robust results with a maximum standard error ratio of +/-3.5% at the 95% confidence level. It is important to remember however that the standard error for each of the demographic sub-groups is much larger than for the overall results. When considering a sub-group size of 100 for example, the standard error increases to 10% .

• The demographics used to analyse the results were gender, age, country of birth and location of main residence.

• Where appropriate, the report shows comparisons with the 2013 survey results.

7

Index of Slides

Slides

9-10 Section 1. About the Respondents

11-17 Section 2. Qualities of Shire and Elected Council

18-95 Section 3. Importance of Service and Satisfaction with Current Services

20 Infrastructure

37 Health and Environment

58 Recreation

75 Economic Development

84 Community and Information

101-106 Section 4. General Issues

8

9

Profile of Survey Respondents (N=754)

54%

44%

9%

37%

52%

70%

22%

47%

16%

9% 5%

7%

14%

Gender Age Country of Birth Current Residence 10

11

Corporate Image Satisfaction Compared with 2013

12

ELEMENT

AUGUSTA-MARGARET RIVER

2016 RATING

PERFORMA

NCE MEAN (OUT OF 4)


2013 RATING

PERFORMA

NCE MEAN (OUT OF 4)

SHIR

E ST

AFF

Courtesy of Shire Staff 92% 3.2 93% 3.2

Effectiveness of Shire Staff 82% 3.0 79% 2.9

Front counter service 92% 3.3 92% 3.3

Responsiveness to complaints/

requests

68% 2.8 67% 2.7

SHIR

E’S

IMA

GE

Overall image of Shire 75% 2.8 67% 2.7

Presentation of the Shire to visitors 84% 3.1 77% 2.9

Image of Shire in the local district 67% 2.7 58% 2.6

ELEC

TED

C

OU

NC

IL

&

CO

UN

CI-

LLO

RS Performance of the elected Council 66% 2.7 53% 2.4

Performance of this elected Shire compared to Busselton and Nannup

61% 2.6 51% 2.4

VA

LUE

FOR

M

ON

EY

The current level of Council rates 35% 2. 2 39% 2. 2

Charges made for other Shire services eg tip fees, planning fees, Rec Centre etc

46% 2.3 48% 2.3

Performance of the Shire compared to level of rates paid

39% 2.2 37% 2.1

Overall Satisfaction Ratings – 4 Corporate Image Areas

13

41%

52%

67%

83%

40%

64%

75%

84%

Value for Money

Elected ShireCouncillors

Shire's Image

Shire Staff

2016 2013

92%

82%

92%

68%

93%

79%

92%

67%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Courtesy of ShireStaff

Effectiveness ofShire Staff

Front counterservice

Responsiveness tocomplaints/

requests

Net Satisfaction

2016 201314

1. SHIRE STAFF

75%

84%

67% 67%

77%

58%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Overall Image of Shire Presentation of the Shire toVisitors

Image of the Shire in LocalDistrict

Net Satisfaction

2016 201315

2. SHIRE’S IMAGE

66% 61%

53% 51%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Performance Of the Elected Council Performance of this Elected Shire Comparedto Busselton and Nannup

Net Satisfaction

2016 201316

3. ELECTED SHIRE COUNCILLORS

35%

46% 39% 39%

48%

37%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

The Current Level of CouncilRates

Charges made for other ShireServices e.g. tip fees, planning

fees, Rec Centre etc

Performance of Shire comparedto Level of Rates Paid

Net Satisfaction

2016 201317

4. VALUE FOR MONEY

18

Overall Satisfaction Ratings – Direct Service Areas

19

85%

82%

85%

79%

64%

86%

86%

90%

81%

73%

Community &Information

EconomicDevelopment

Recreation

Health &Environment

Infrastructure

2016 2013

20

Infrastructure Satisfaction Compared with 2013

21

ELEMENT


2016 RATING

PERFORMA

NCE MEAN (OUT OF 4)


2013 RATING

PERFORMA

NCE MEAN (OUT OF 4)

ENG

INEE

RIN

G

SER

VIC

ES

Stormwater drainage maintenance 75% 2.8 69% 2.7 Maintenance of Parks, Gardens & Reserves 88% 3.0 77% 2.8

Sealed road maintenance 72% 2.8 59% 2.5

Gravel Road maintenance 61% 2.6 53% 2.4

General presentation of streets 83% 2.9 72% 2.7

Overall rating Engineering Services 82% 2.9 68% 2.7

TRA

FFIC

SER

VIC

ES Local traffic safety, speed, volume 69% 2.7 64% 2.6

Footpaths in Towns 68% 2.7 64% 2.6

Bicycle & walking trails 80% 2.9 74% 2.8

Street lighting 85% 2.9 81% 2.8

Overall rating Traffic Services 79% 2.8 71% 2.7

PLA

NN

ING

&

BU

ILD

ING

Ensuring development is appropriate 57% 2.5 50% 2.4

Planning for future growth 57% 2.5 51% 2.4

Protection of local character and heritage buildings 62% 2.6 59% 2.5

Overall rating Planning & Building 59% 2.5 54% 2.4

Overall Satisfaction Ratings - Infrastructure

22

64%

54%

71%

68%

73%

59%

79%

82%

Overall Satisfaction

Planning & Building

Traffic Services

Engineering Services

2016

2013

Overall Satisfaction Ratings - Infrastructure

23

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Engineering Services Traffic Services Planning & Building

Gender Age Country of Birth Residence

24

75%

88%

72%

61%

83% 82%

69%

77%

59%

53%

72% 68%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Stormwaterdrainage

maintenance

Maintenance ofparks, gardens &

reserves

Sealed roadmaintenance

Gravel roadmaintenance

Generalpresentation of

streets

Overall rating -Engineering

Services

2016 2013

25

Net Satisfaction by Engineering Service Area – comparison with 2013

Mean Scores (out of 4) Importance/Satisfaction - Engineering Services

26

2.9

2.9

2.6

2.8

3.0

2.8

3.3

3.1

3.4

3.5

3.2

3.4

0 1 2 3 4

Overall rating - Engineering Services

General presentation of streets

Gravel road maintenance

Sealed road maintenance

Maintenance of parks, gardens &reserves

Stormwater drainage maintenance

Importance Satisfaction

Mean Score Performance Gap (lowest to highest) – Engineering Services

27

1.0

1.0

0.7

0.5

0.4

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.3

0.2

Gravel road maintenance

Sealed road maintenance

Stormwater drainage maintenance

General presentation of streets

Maintenance of parks, gardens &reserves

2016 2013

28

69% 68%

80% 85%

79%

64% 64%

74%

81%

71%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Local Traffic Safety,Speed Volume

Footpaths in Town Bicycle & WalkingTrials

Street Lighting Overall rating -Traffic Services

2016 2013

29

Net Satisfaction by Traffic Services Area – comparison with 2013

Mean Score (out of 4) Importance/Satisfaction - Traffic Services

30

2.8

2.9

2.9

2.7

2.7

3.3

3.1

3.2

3.4

3.4

0 1 2 3 4

Overall Rating – Traffic Services

Street Lighting

Bicycle & Walking Trials

Footpaths in Towns

Local Traffic Safety, Speed, Volume


Mean Score Performance Gap (lowest to highest) – Traffic Services

31

0.8

0.8

0.4

0.3

0.7

0.7

0.3

0.2

Local Traffic Safety, Speed, Volume

Footpaths in Towns

Bicycle & Walking Trials

Street Lighting

2016 2013

32

57% 57% 62%

59%

50% 51%

59% 54%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ensuring Development isAppropriate

Planning for FutureGrowth

Protection of LocalCharacter & Heritage

Buildings

Overall Rating – Planning & Building

2016 2013

33

Net Satisfaction by Planning & Building Area – comparison with 2013

Mean Score (out of 4) Importance/Satisfaction – Planning & Building

34

2.5

2.6

2.5

2.5

3.3

3.3

3.5

3.5

0 1 2 3 4

Overall Rating – Planning & Building

Protection of Local Character &Heritage Buildings

Planning for Future Growth

Ensuring Development is Appropriate


Mean Score Performance Gap (lowest to highest) – Planning & Building

35

1.2

1.1

0.9

1.0

1.0

0.8


Ensuring Development isAppropriate

Protection of Local Character &Heritage Buildings

2016 2013

Performance Gap Analysis - Infrastructure

36

Stormwater Drainage Maintenance

Maintenance of Parks, Gardens & Reserves

Sealed Road Maintenance

Gravel Road Maintenance

General Presentation of Streets

Local Traffic Safety, speed, volume etc

Footpaths in Town

Bike & Walking Trails

Street Lighting

Ensuring Development is Appropriate


Protection of Local Character & Heritage

Buildings

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3 3.1 3.2

Imp

ort

ance

Satisfaction

CELEBRATE

MONITOR

FOCUS

MAINTAIN

37

Health & Environment Satisfaction Compared with 2013

38

ELEMENT


2016 RATING

PERFORMAN

CE MEAN (OUT OF 4)


2013 RATING

PERFORMAN

CE MEAN (OUT OF 4)

PU

BLI

C

HEA

LTH

Presentation of Public toilets 65% 2.6 56% 2.5 Ensuring safe eating premises 93% 3.1 89% 2.9 Ensuring markets & events are operated well 93% 3.1 92% 3.0 Overall rating Public Health 92% 3.0 86% 2.9

WA

STE

MA

NA

GEM

ENT Rubbish collection service 87% 3.1 89% 3.1

Re-cycling collection service 77% 2.9 78% 2.9 Davis Road Landfill Site 80% 2.9 82% 2.9 Transfer Stations 68% 2.7 82% 2.7 Public litter bins 75% 2.8 74% 2.8 Overall rating Waste Management 79% 2.9 84% 2.9

RA

NG

ER

SER

VIC

ES Dog control 71% 2.7 66% 2.6

Illegal camping control 53% 2.4 55% 2.4 Car parking control in Towns 80% 2.8 77% 2.8 Fire Break Inspections 80% 2.8 78% 2.8 Overall rating Ranger Services 76% 2.8 74% 2.7

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L P

RO

TEC

TIO

N

Protection of natural bushland 71% 2.7 66% 2.6

Supporting green volunteers 83% 2.9 78% 2.8

Water conservation & recycling 75% 2.8 72% 2.7

Reducing Greenhouse gases 73% 2.7 69% 2.6

Tree planting programs 73% 2.8 71% 2.7 Overall rating Environmental Protect 77% 2.8 73% 2.7

Overall Satisfaction Ratings – Health & Environment

39

79%

73%

74%

84%

86%

81%

77%

76%

79%

92%


EnvironmentalProtection

Ranger Services

Waste Management

Public Health

2016

2013

Overall Satisfaction Ratings – Health & Environment

40

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%Public Health Waste Management Ranger Services Environmental Protection


41

65%

93% 93% 92%

56%

89% 92%

86%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Presentation of PublicToilets

Ensuring Safe EatingPremises

Ensuring Markets andEvents are Operated

Well

Overall Rating – Public Health

2016 2013

42

Net Satisfaction by Public Health Service Area – comparison with 2013

Mean Scores (out of 4) Importance/Satisfaction – Public Health

43

3.0

3.1

3.1

2.6

3.4

3.2

3.4

3.4

0 1 2 3 4

Overall Rating – Public Health

Ensuring Markets and Events areOperated Well

Ensuring Safe Eating Premises

Presentation of Public Toilets


Mean Score Performance Gap (lowest to highest) – Public Health

44

1.0

0.5

0.2

0.8

0.4

0.1



Ensuring Markets and Events areOperated Well

2016 2013

45

87%

77% 80%

68%

75% 79%

89%

78% 82% 82%

74%

84%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

RubbishCollection

Service

Re-cyclingCollection

Service

Davis RoadLandfill Site

Transfer StationsPublic Litter Bins Overall Rating – Waste

Management

2016 2013

46

Net Satisfaction by Waste Management Service Area – comparison with 2013

Mean Scores (out of 4) Importance/Satisfaction – Waste Management

47

2.9

2.8

2.7

2.9

2.9

3.1

3.5

3.5

3.4

3.4

3.5

3.7

0 1 2 3 4

Overall Rating – Waste Management

Public Litter Bins

Transfer Stations

Davis Road Landfill Site

Re-cycling Collection Service

Rubbish Collection Service


Mean Score Performance Gap (lowest to highest) – Waste Management

48

0.8

0.5

0.6

0.5

0.6

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

Public Litter Bins

Transfer Stations

Re-cycling Collection Service



2016 2013

49

71%

53%

80% 80% 76%

66%

55%

77% 78% 74%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Dog Control Illegal CampingControl

Car Parking Controlin Towns

Fire BreakInspections

Overall Rating – Ranger Services

2016 2013

50

Net Satisfaction by Ranger Service Area – comparison with 2013

Mean Scores (out of 4) Importance/Satisfaction – Ranger Services

51

2.8

2.8

2.8

2.4

2.7

3.2

3.3

2.8

3.1

3.1

0 1 2 3 4

Overall Rating – Ranger Services

Fire Break Inspections

Car Parking Control in Towns

Illegal Camping Control

Dog Control


Mean Score Performance Gap (lowest to highest) – Ranger Services

52

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.1

0.7

0.5

0.4

0.0

Illegal Camping Control


Dog Control


2016 2013

53

71%

83%

75% 73% 73%

77%

66%

78%

72% 69%

71% 73%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Protection ofNatural

Bushland

SupportingGreen

Volunteers

WaterConservation &

Recycling

ReducingGreenhouse

Gases

Tree PlantingProgram

Overall Rating – Environmental

Protection

2016 2013

54

Net Satisfaction by Environmental Protection Service Area – comparison with 2013

Mean Scores (out of 4) Importance/Satisfaction – Environmental Protection

55

2.8

2.8

2.7

2.8

2.9

2.7

3.3

3.3

3.2

3.5

3.1

3.5

0 1 2 3 4

Overall Rating – Environmental Protection

Tree Planting Program

Reducing Greenhouse Gases

Water Conservation & Recycling

Supporting Green Volunteers

Protection of Natural Bushland


Mean Score Performance Gap (lowest to highest) – Environmental Protection

56

0.9

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.8

0.7

0.5

0.5

0.2






2016 2013

Performance Gap Analysis– Health & Environment

57



Ensuring Markets & Events are well operated



Recycling Collection Service

Transfer Stations

Public Litter Bins

Dog Control Illegal Camping Control








2.8

2.9

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3 3.1 3.2

Imp

ort

ance

Satisfaction

CELEBRATE

MONITOR

FOCUS

MAINTAIN

58

Recreation Satisfaction Compared with 2013

59

ELEMENT


2016 RATING

PERFORMAN

CE MEAN (OUT OF 4)


2013 RATING

PERFORMAN

CE MEAN (OUT OF 4)

PU

BLI

C O

PEN

SP

AC

E

Neighbourhood and local parks 87% 3.0 80% 2.8

Children’s Playgrounds 84% 2.9 79% 2.8

Beaches and river foreshores 83% 2.9 76% 2.8

Overall rating Public Open Space 87% 3.0 79% 2.8

SPO

RTI

NG

SER

VIC

ES Sporting fields eg Gloucester Park,

Cowaramup Oval, Augusta Oval etc 94% 3.1 93% 3.0

Margaret Rec Centre 92% 3.1 90% 3.0

Augusta Rec Centre 89% 3.0 84% 2.9

Shire support to sporting clubs 87% 2.9 84% 2.9

Overall Rating Sporting Services 91% 3.0 88% 2.9

CU

LTU

RA

L SE

RV

ICES

Margaret River & Augusta Libraries 95% 3.3 95% 3.3

Public halls and meeting rooms 93% 3.0 90% 3.0

Margaret Cultural Centre 87% 3.0 83% 2.9

Support to Arts and Culture 91% 3.0 85% 2.9

Overall rating Cultural Services 93% 3.0 89% 3.0

Overall Satisfaction Ratings – Recreation

60

85%

89%

88%

79%

90%

93%

91%

87%


Cultural Services

Sporting Services

Public Open Space

2016

2013

Overall Satisfaction Ratings – Recreation

61

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%Public Open Space Sporting Services Cultural Services


62

87% 84% 83%

87%

80% 79% 76%

79%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Neighbourhood & LocalParks

Children’s Playgrounds Beaches & RiverForeshores

Overall Rating – Public Open Spaces

2016 20132

63

Net Satisfaction by Public Open Spaces Service Area – comparison with 2013

Mean Scores (out of 4) Importance/Satisfaction – Public Open Spaces

64

3.0

2.9

2.9

3.0

3.4

3.5

3.3

3.4

0 1 2 3 4

Overall Rating – Public Open Spaces

Beaches & River Foreshores

Children’s Playgrounds

Neighbourhood & Local Parks


Mean Score Performance Gap (lowest to highest) – Public Open Spaces

65

0.8

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.4

0.4


Children’s Playgrounds


2016 2013

66

94% 92%

89% 87%

91% 93%

90%

84% 84% 88%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Sports Fields Margaret River RecCentre

Augusta Rec Centre Shire Support toSporting Clubs

Overall Rating – Sporting Services

2016 2013

67

Net Satisfaction by Sporting Services Area – comparison with 2013

Mean Scores (out of 4) Importance/Satisfaction – Sporting Services

68

3.0

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.1

3.2

3.1

3.1

3.2

3.3

0 1 2 3 4

Overall Rating – Sporting Services

Shire Support to Sporting Clubs

Augusta Rec Centre

Margaret River Rec Centre

Sports Fields


Mean Score Performance Gap (lowest to highest) – Sporting Services

69

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

Augusta Rec Centre

Shire Support to Sporting Clubs


Sports Fields

2016 2013

70

95% 93%

87% 91%

93% 95%

90%

83% 85%

89%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Margaret River &Augusta Libraries

Public Halls &Meeting Rooms

Margaret RiverCultural Centre

Support to Arts &Culture

Overall Rating – Cultural Services

2016 20132

71

Net Satisfaction by Cultural Services Area – comparison with 2013

Mean Scores (out of 4) Importance/Satisfaction – Cultural Services

72

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.3

3.1

3.0

3.1

3.1

3.4

0 1 2 3 4

Overall Rating – Cultural Services

Support to Arts & Culture

Margaret River Cultural Centre

Public Halls & Meeting Rooms

Margaret River & Augusta Libraries


Mean Score Performance Gap (lowest to highest) – Cultural Services

73

0.2

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.1





2016 2013

Performance Gap Analysis– Recreation

74


Augusta Rec Centre


Sports Fields Children’s Playgrounds


Council Support to Sporting Clubs





2.85

2.95

3.05

3.15

3.25

3.35

3.45

3.55

2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.5

Imp

ort

ance

Satisfaction

CELEBRATE

MONITOR

FOCUS

MAINTAIN

75

Economic Development Satisfaction Compared with 2013

76

ELEMENT


2016 RATING

PERFORMAN

CE MEAN (OUT OF 4) AUGUSTA-

MARGARET RIVER 2013 RATING

PERFORMAN

CE MEAN (OUT OF 4)

ECO

NO

MIC

DEV

ELO

PM

ENT

Promotion of local businesses 75% 2.8 68% 2.7

Promotion of tourism 84% 3.0 81% 2.8

Support for major events eg MR

Pro Surfing, Augusta Adventure

Race, Capes MTB

89% 3.1 89% 3.0

Caravan Parks – Turner, Flinders

Bay and Alexandra Bridge 89% 3.0 77% 2.8

Overall rating Economic Dev 86% 3.0 82% 2.8

Overall Satisfaction Ratings – Economic Development

77

82%

86% Overall Satisfaction -

EconomicDevelopment

2016

2013

Overall Satisfaction Ratings – Economic Development

78

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


79

75%

84%

89% 89% 86%

68%

81%

89%

77%

82%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Promotion of LocalBusinesses

Promotion ofTourism

Support for MajorEvents

Caravan Parks – Turner, Flinders Bay & Alexandra Bridge

Overall Rating – Economic

Development

2016 2013

80

Net Satisfaction by Economic Development Service Area – comparison with 2013

Mean Scores (out of 4) Importance/Satisfaction – Economic Development

81

3.0

3.0

3.1

3.0

2.8

3.2

3.2

3.1

3.3

3.2

0 1 2 3 4

Overall Rating – Economic Development


Support for Major Events

Promotion of Tourism

Promotion of Local Businesses


Mean Score Performance Gap (lowest to highest) – Economic Development

82

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1





2016 2013

Performance Gap Analysis– Economic Development

83




Caravan Parks

3.05

3.15

3.25

3.35

2.75 2.85 2.95 3.05 3.15

Imp

ort

ance

Satisfaction

CELEBRATE

MONITOR

FOCUS

MAINTAIN

84

Community & Information Satisfaction Compared with 2013

85

ELEMENT


2016 RATING

PERFORMANC

E MEAN (OUT OF 4)


2013 RATING

PERFORMANC

E MEAN (OUT OF 4)

CO

MM

UN

ITY

DEV

ELO

PM

ENT Support for seniors activities 84% 2.9 80% 2.8

Creche and Out of School Care

Services at MR Rec Centre 90% 3 89% 2.9

Support to people with disabilities 82% 2.9 79% 2.8

Support to community groups and

volunteers 86% 2.9 82% 2.9

Zone Room (Youth Space) and

Services to youth 85% 2.9 77% 2.8

Overall rating Community Dev 88% 3 85% 2.9

CO

MM

UN

ITY

SAFE

TY

Support for Bush Fire Brigades 90% 3.1 86% 3.0

Emergency Management Planning 85% 3 81% 2.9

Graffiti Control 84% 2.9 84% 2.9

Lifeguard Service at Rivermouth

Beach 93% 3.1 91% 3.0

Overall rating Community Safety 92% 3 89% 3.0

INFO

RM

ATIO

N

SER

VIC

ES

Community Update/Notices in Times 91% 3 91% 3.0

Website www.amrshire.wa.gov.au 86% 3 87% 2.9

Community info provided by email 77% 2.8 - -

Consultation with the community 61% 2.6 57% 2.5

Overall rating Information Services 79% 2.8 80% 2.8

Overall Satisfaction Ratings – Community & Information

86

85%

80%

89%

85%

86%

79%

92%

88%


Information Services

Community Safety

CommunityDevelopment

2016

2013

Overall Satisfaction Ratings – Community & Information

87

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%Community Development Community Safety Information Services


88

84%

90%

82% 86% 85%

88%

80%

89%

79% 82%

77%

85%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Support forSeniors Activities

Creche and Out ofSchool Care

Services at MRRec Centre

Support to Peoplewith Disabilities

Support toCommunityGroups andVolunteers

Zone Room(Youth Space) &

Services to Youth

Overall Rating – Community

Development

2016 2013

89

Net Satisfaction by Community Development Service Area – comparison with 2013

Mean Scores (out of 4) Importance/Satisfaction – Community Development

90

3.0

2.9

2.9

2.9

3.0

2.9

3.2

3.2

3.3

3.3

3.0

3.2

0 1 2 3 4

Overall Rating – Community Development

Zone Room (Youth Space) & Servicesto Youth

Support to Community Groups andVolunteers

Support to People with Disabilities

Creche and Out of School CareServices at MR Rec Centre

Support for Seniors Activities


Mean Score Performance Gap (lowest to highest) – Community Development

91

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.6

0.2

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.0



Support to Community Groups andVolunteers

Zone Room (Youth Space) &Services to Youth

Creche and Out of School CareServices at MR Rec Centre

2016 2013

92

90%

85% 84%

93% 92%

86%

81% 84%

91% 89%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Support for BushFire Brigades

EmergencyManagement

Planning

Graffiti Control Lifeguard servicesat Rivermouth

Beach

Overall Rating – Community Safety

2016 2013

93

Net Satisfaction by Community Safety Service Area – comparison with 2013

Mean Scores (out of 4) Importance/Satisfaction – Community Safety

94

3.0

3.1

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.5

3.3

3.1

3.7

3.8

0 1 2 3 4

Overall Rating – Community Safety

Lifeguard services at RivermouthBeach

Graffiti Control

Emergency Management Planning

Support for Bush Fire Brigades


Mean Score Performance Gap (lowest to highest) – Community Safety

95

0.80

0.80

0.30

0.20

0.70

0.70

0.20

0.20



Lifeguard Services at RivermouthBeach

Graffiti Control

2016 2013

96

91%

86%

77%

61%

79%

91% 87%

57%

80%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

CommunityUpdate/Notices in

Times

Shire Website Community Info inprovided by Email

Consultation withthe Community

Overall Rating – Information

Services

2016 2013

97

Net Satisfaction by Information Services Area – comparison with 2013

Mean Scores (out of 4) Importance/Satisfaction – Information Services

98

2.8

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.0

3.2

3.4

2.8

3.1

3.1

0 1 2 3 4

Overall Rating – Information Services

Consultation with the Community

Community Info in provided by Email

Shire Website

Community Update/Notices in Times


Mean Score Performance Gap (lowest to highest) – Information Services

99

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.0

0.8

0.1

0.0

0.0


Shire Website

Community Info in provided by Email

Community Update/Notices in Times

2016 2013

Performance Gap Analysis– Community & Information

100


Graffiti Control


Support to Community Groups & Volunteers

Zone Room (Youth Space) and Services to youth



Community info provided by email

Lifeguard services at Rivermouth Beach

Shire Website

Community Update Page in Mail

Creche & Out of School Care


2.75

2.85

2.95

3.05

3.15

3.25

3.35

3.45

3.55

3.65

3.75

2.55 2.65 2.75 2.85 2.95 3.05 3.15 3.25

Imp

ort

ance

Satisfaction

CELEBRATE

MONITOR

FOCUS

MAINTAIN

101

3% 5%

13%

41%

29%

10%

4% 3%

10%

41%

31%

10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

More than onceper month

Monthly Once Every twomonths or so

2-4 Times perYear

Very Rarely(once a year or

less)

Not at All

2016 2013102

S4.1 How often have you contacted your Council Office in the last 12 months?

S4.2 Overall, how would you rate your satisfaction with the service you received?

4%

13%

47%

35%

5%

14%

50%

31%

Very Poor Poor Good Very Good

2016 2013

103

17%

83%

19%

81%

Net Poor Net Good

2016 2013

3.1 3.1

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Mean

2016

2013

S4.5 How strongly do you agree or disagree that Margaret River should have free parking in the Main Street, but with a 60 minute time limit? New question this year

19%

11%

29%

41%

StronglyDisagree

Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

104

30%

70%

Net Disagree Net Agree

2.9

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Mean

S4.6 Following the construction of the Perimeter Road in 2017/18 Council will be spending ratepayers’ money on upgrading the Main Street. Please rank the following list of possible improvements, from 1 to 7, with 1 being of most importance and 7 being of least importance to you.

105

5.3

4.5

4.0

3.9

3.5

3.2

2.5 Making the main street more pedestrianfriendly

Improving drainage and stopping the annualflooding problem

More parking and easier to access parking

Providing more al fresco and outdoor areas forcafes and restaurants

Planting more trees and shrubs in the mainstreet

Making the street attractive at night withinnovative lighting of trees and buildings

Installing more public artwork

Higher Priority

Lower Priority

S4.8 At the intersection of Bussell Hwy, Wallcliffe Rd and Forrest Rd would you like to see a roundabout or a set of traffic lights to better manage traffic? New question this year

106

20%

80%

Traffic Lights

Roundabout

2016