2017-08-08 Services & Organisation Committee Agenda

SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                  8 AUGUST 2017


The survey method used two different measurements of community perceptions of their level of
satisfaction with current Council performance, direct and calculated.
   Direct being the Unweighted Overall Performance Rating obtained by asking respondents
     to assess the overall performance of Council.
   Calculated being the Weighted Average Total Performance Rating or TPI which is
     calculated by summarising all performance ratings of each of the 41 responsibility/service
     areas into one number weighted by the relevant importance of each area.
An examination of the results shows that while Noosa Council has performed well in the majority
of responsibility/service areas which are important to the community, there is still the opportunity
to improve performance in a number of responsibility areas/services to optimise performance and
better meet community expectations.
The information from the survey will be used to assist Council to review and improve services
provided to the community and to benchmark our performance against other Queensland
councils. This will not only provide us with an idea of well we are doing compared to other
councils but will also assist us to prioritise our efforts and identify where we can learn from
others.

RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Director Executive Services to the Services & Organisation
Committee Meeting dated 8 August 2017 regarding the results of the Community Satisfaction
Survey and the report prepared by Market Facts QLD Pty Ltd contained in Attachment 1 to the
report.



REPORT
The community satisfaction survey commissioned by Noosa Council and undertaken by Market
Facts (Qld) Pty Ltd in April - May 2017 surveyed 400 Noosa residents aged 18 years and over.
The objectives of the survey were to:
   Provide measurements of residents’ attitudes and opinions and diagnostic information and
     analyses, regarding the extent to which the Council’s provision of works, facilities and
     relevant administrative services meets the community’s perceived priorities.
   Compare the results against the most recent (July 2015) Provincial LGA ‘norms’
     established by the LGAQ’s biennial surveys.
   Provide number-based detail which can be used to calculate relative priorities between the
     41 primary service/policy areas for which Council is responsible according to the “weighted
     average” of community perceptions, after taking into account both existing Council
     Performance as well as basic community priorities (i.e. ratings for Importance).
The survey asked respondents to identify how important the services/responsibilities were using
a five-point scale (Crucial 5, Important 4, Nice to Have 3, Not Very Important 2, Quite Important
1) and how well they believed Council is performing in those aspects (Very Good 5, Good 4, Fair
Only 3, Poor 2 and Very Poor 1).
The structured survey benchmarked community attitudes measuring levels of satisfaction with 41
primary service/policy areas under 5 themes with a probable error of +3.1 at the 90% level of
confidence.




                                                                                   Page 49 of 146