COMMUNITY SATISFACTION SURVEY BAYSIDE CITY COUNCIL JUNE RESEARCH REPORT - Coordinated by the Department of Planning and Community Development On behalf of Victoria councils

In 2012 Bayside City Council recorded an Overall Performance Index Score of 65. This is significantly higher than the State-wide average for this measure of 60 and 1 point lower than the average Index Score of 66 for the Inner Melbourne Metropolitan group. On other core performance measures (which can also be compared against all Councils State-wide and the Inner Melbourne Metropolitan group) Bayside City Council scored as follows: –71 for Customer Service –53 for Community Consultation and Engagement –51 for Advocacy –48 for Overall Council Direction More specifically on these core measures: –71 for Customer Service is equal to the State-wide average of 71 and 2 points lower than the Inner Melbourne Metropolitan average of 73. –53 for Consultation is significantly lower than the State-wide of 57 and the Inner Melbourne Metropolitan average of 58. – 51 for Advocacy is again significantly lower than the State-wide average of 55 and the Inner Melbourne Metropolitan average of 57. – 48 for Council Direction is also significantly lower than the State-wide average of 52 and the average Index Score of 54 for the Inner Melbourne Metropolitan group. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

On Community Consultation and Engagement, there are no significant differences by key age and gender groups, with rated performance: –Highest amongst residents living in Region One and residents aged 65+ (both 57). –Lowest amongst men aged (48) and residents living in Region Two (49). In terms of Bayside City Council’s Advocacy efforts, performance ratings are: –Highest and significantly so, amongst those living in Region One (56) and although not significantly so, residents aged (56) also rated Council higher than other residents. –Lowest and significantly so, amongst residents aged (45) and although not significantly so, residents rate Council lower if they have had household (44) or personal experience (46) of Council’s Advocacy efforts. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

In terms of its Overall Performance Index Score of 65, which as noted is significantly higher than the State-wide average and slightly lower than the Inner Melbourne Metropolitan group average of 60 and 66 respectively, rated performance for Bayside City Council is: –Highest and significantly so, amongst residents aged (72). –Lowest and significantly so, amongst residents aged (59) and (60). Customers who had contact with Bayside: Of the 68% who have had contact with Bayside City Council over the last 12 months and who rate it 71 overall for Customer Service, performance is equal to the State-wide average and slightly lower than the Inner Melbourne Metropolitan group average and is: –Highest and significantly so, amongst residents aged 65+ (79) and men aged 50+ (78). –Lowest and significantly so, amongst men aged (54) and residents aged (63). The most frequent method of contact among the 68% of residents who have had contact with Bayside City Council over the last 12 months was by telephone (37%), followed by in person contact (34%), in writing (21%), by (16%) and via the website (15%). Website contact was rated the highest for customer service (at 76), followed by in person contact (73), telephone (71), in writing (69) and (68). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Council scored for the following services, rated on performance only (rather than both importance and performance): –Enforcement of local laws: 68 –The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area: 64 –Informing the community: 61 –Traffic management: 58 –Community consultation and engagement: 53 –Parking facilities: 52 –Lobbying on behalf of the community: 51 Services on which rated performance equals or exceeds importance were: –Art centres and libraries: performance 78, importance 68 = +10 net differential –Community and cultural activities: performance 64, importance 59 = +5 net differential –The appearance of public areas: performance 73, importance 73 = no net differential Services on which rated importance exceed performance by 10 points or more and are therefore a cause for some concern and potential remedial attention include: –Planning and building permits: performance 51, importance 77 = -26 net differential –Council’s general town planning policy: performance 54, importance 75 = -21 net differential –Elderly support services: performance 64, importance 78 = -14 net differential SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

When asked to describe the best thing about Council, five issues were mentioned by 10% or more, which is a relatively high result compared to other Councils State-wide and in the Inner Melbourne Metropolitan group. Top responses included: –Well maintained and appealing parks and gardens: 17% –Clean foreshore / beach: 16% –Recreational and sporting facilities: 15% –Community facilities, including libraries and civic centres: 13% –Overall a good place to live: 12% Conversely, when asked what Council needs to do to improve its performance, positively 11% of residents said nothing, that they were happy with the status quo. Areas mentioned for improvement included: –Town planning: 13% –Waste management: 12% –Inappropriate/ bad development in the area: 11% –Parking availability, including more and free street parking: 9% –Traffic management, including congestion, clearways and speed issues: 8% SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

General direction of Council: When asked about the direction of Bayside City Council over the last 12 months, 72% of all residents say it has stayed about the same, 10% say things have improved and 14% say things have deteriorated. Residents aged (17%) are most likely to say Council Direction has improved, along with residents in Region One (16%). Conversely, residents aged (18%) are most likely to say Council Direction has deteriorated over the last 12 months and on an Index Score basis this group rates significantly below average at 43 compared to 48 overall. The overwhelming majority (91%) of Bayside City Council residents believe there is room for improvement in Council’s overall performance over the next 12 months, with 40% believing there is a lot of room for improvement. Only 5% of residents believed there is not much room for improvement and just 2% say none at all. People aged (96%) and those living in Region Two (95%) are most likely to say there is room for improvement SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

General direction of Council cont. Overall, most residents (72%) do believe Council is generally heading in the right direction, 17% definitely so and 55% probably so. Only 17% of residents believe Council is headed in the wrong direction, 7% definitely so. Encouragingly, these results are comparable to the State-wide and Inner Melbourne Metropolitan results and show that whilst there may be room for improvement, people generally believe Council’s macro settings are OK. In terms of informing people about council news and information and upcoming events, a Council newsletter sent via mail is by far the preferred form of communication among residents (41%), both for those aged under 50 (33%) and particularly for those aged over 50 (49%). A council newsletter sent via is the second most preferred method of communication (24%), more so by residents aged under 50 (27%) than over 50s (20%). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS