Holroyd City Council Special Rate Variation Research Prepared by : Micromex Research

1. Holroyd City Council Special Rate Variation Research Prepared by: Micromex Research Date: December 2013

2. Background

3. 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: • Measure community support for the introduction of a special rate levy • Provide an avenue for feedback in order for residents to express their views on the proposed SRV

4. 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.

5. 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 family member works for Holroyd City Council? Q1. In which suburb do you live? Q2. How satisfied are you with the quality of infrastructure, such as buildings, roads, footpaths and parks, currently provided by Council in the local area? Q3. How satisfied are you with the level of services currently provided by Council in the local area? Q4. 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. Why do you say that? Q7. Prior to this call were you aware that Council is potentially seeking to make an application for a special rate variation? Q8. How were you informed of the Special Rate Variation? Q9. Based on what you have been told, how important do you believe it is that Holroyd City Council is allowed to introduce this special rates variation? Q10. Please stop me when I read out your age bracket: Q11. Which of the following best describes the house where you are currently living? Q12. Do you live in a : Q13. Which of the following best describes your current employment status? Q12. Gender The questionnaire was developed in conjunction with Council staff

6. 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 ‘Very low’ level of importance/satisfaction/support • 2.00 – 2.49 ‘Low’ level of importance/satisfaction/support • 2.50 – 2.99 ‘Moderately low’ level of importance/satisfaction/support • 3.00 – 3.59 ‘Moderate’ level of importance/satisfaction/support • 3.60 – 3.89 ‘Moderately high’ level of importance/satisfaction/support • 3.90 – 4.19 ‘High’ level of importance/satisfaction/support • 4.20 – 4.49 ‘Very high’ level of importance/satisfaction/support • 4.50 + ‘Extreme’ level of importance/satisfaction/support

7. Sample Profile

8. Sample Profile Base: n=400 The sample has been weighted to reflect ABS Census data 8

9. 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? Scale: 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfied ▲▼ = significantly higher/lower level(by group) Base: n=400 Those aged 65+ are significantly more satisfied with the quality of infrastructure currently provided than were those aged 35-49

10. 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? • Scale: 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfied • ▲▼ = significantly higher/lower level(by group) Base: n=400 Those aged 65+ were significantly more satisfied with the level of service currently provided than were those aged 18-49

11. 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? • Scale: 1 = not at all important, 5 = very important • ▲▼ = significantly higher/lower level (by group) 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

12. Funding Options

13. 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

14. 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

15. Just Over ½ The Residents Are Supportive Of Option 1 – Decline Service Q. How supportive are you of Council proceeding with this option? Scale: 1 = not at all supportive, 5 = very supportive ▲▼ = significantly higher/lower level (by group) Base: n=400 Only 9% of residents are very supportive of this option

16. 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

17. 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? Scale: 1 = not at all supportive, 5 = very supportive ▲▼ = significantly higher/lower level (by group) Base: n=400 Those aged 18-34 were significantly more supportive of Option 2 – Maintain Service than were those aged 35-49

18. 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

19. 66% Of Residents Are At Least Somewhat Supportive Of Option 3 - Enhance • Q. How supportive are you of Council proceeding with this option? Scale: 1 = not at all supportive, 5 = very supportive ▲▼ = significantly higher/lower level (by group) Base: n=400 Non-ratepayers are significantly more supportive of this Option than are ratepayers

20. 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: Base: n=400 The majority recognise that there needs to be some investment into the services and facilities offered in the LGA

21. 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”

22. 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” “This allows for new projects and developments in the area” “Everything needs to be improved and I don't mind paying a little more for this” “It creates jobs for people within the community” “Growth is required so services don't go backwards” “Rates are going to increase regardless so I would prefer to see improved services in the area as a result of a rate increase” “If no one pays for a rate increase then nothing will get done and everything will decline”

23. 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”

24. 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 Males more likely than females Ratepayers more likely than non-ratepayers Base: n=400 Not surprisingly, ratepayers are more aware

25. Conclusion

26. 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. • 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

27. Telephone: (02) 4352 2388 Fax: (02) 4352 2117 Web: www.micromex.com.au Email: stu@micromex.com.au