warrnambool city council · years of age, social media updates (27%) have supplanted print...

2019 Local

Government

Community

Satisfaction Survey

Warrnambool City

CouncilCoordinated by the Department of

Environment, Land, Water and Planning

on behalf of Victorian councils

Contents

J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – Warrnambool City Council

2

Background and objectives 4

Key findings and recommendations 6

Summary of findings 14

Detailed findings 29

Overall performance 30

Customer service 33

Communication 41

Council direction 46

Individual service areas 52

Community consultation and engagement 53

Lobbying on behalf of the community 57

Decisions made in the interest of the

community

61

Condition of sealed local roads 65

Informing the community 69

Condition of local streets and footpaths 73

Traffic management 77

Parking facilities 81

Enforcement of local laws 85

Family support services 89

Elderly support services 93

Disadvantaged support services 97

Recreational facilities 99

Appearance of public areas 103

Art centres and libraries 107

Community and cultural activities 111

Waste management 115

Business and community development

and tourism

119

Town planning 123

Planning and building permits 127

Environmental sustainability 131

Emergency and disaster management 135

Planning for population growth 139

Business and community development 143

Tourism development 147

Detailed demographics 151

Appendix A: Index scores, margins of error

and significant differences

153

Appendix B: Further project information 158

83

48

78

45

80

47

-35 -33 -33

79

74

73

Warrnambool City Council – at a glance

3Note: Net differentials are calculated based on the un-rounded importance and performance scores, then rounded to the nearest whole number.


Top 3 performing areas

Top 3 areas for improvement

PerformanceImportance Net differential

Community

decisions

Parking facilities Consultation &

engagementOverall Council performance

Results shown are index scores out of 100.

6056 58

Warrnambool Regional Centres State-wide

Appearance of public areas

Emergency & disaster mngt

Art centres & libraries

Background and

objectives

4

The Victorian Community Satisfaction Survey

(CSS) creates a vital interface between the council

and their community.

Held annually, the CSS asks the opinions of local

people about the place they live, work and play and

provides confidence for councils in their efforts

and abilities.

Now in its twentieth year, this survey provides insight

into the community’s views on:

• councils’ overall performance with benchmarking

against State-wide and council group results

• community consultation and engagement

• advocacy and lobbying on behalf of the community

• customer service, local infrastructure, facilities and

• overall council direction.

When coupled with previous data, the survey provides

a reliable historical source of the community’s views

since 1998. A selection of results from the last seven

years shows that councils in Victoria continue to

provide services that meet the public’s expectations.

Serving Victoria for 20 years

Each year the CSS data is used to develop the State-

wide report which contains all of the aggregated

results, analysis and data. Moreover, with 20 years of

results, the CSS offers councils a long-term, consistent

measure of how they are performing – essential for

councils that work over the long term to provide

valuable services and infrastructure to their

communities.

Participation in the State-wide Local Government

Community Satisfaction Survey is optional.

Participating councils have various choices as to the

content of the questionnaire and the sample size to be

surveyed, depending on their individual strategic,

financial and other considerations.

Background and objectives

5


Key findings and

recommendations

6

The overall performance index score of 56 for

Warrnambool City Council represents a one-point

decline on 2018. This follows a one-point decline the

previous year and although the decline is not

significant, it is beginning to erode the significant, five-

point increase between the 2016 and 2017 surveys.

Overall performance remains eight points down on

Council’s peak result of 64 achieved in 2013.

Warrnambool City Council’s overall performance is

rated statistically significantly lower (at the 95%

confidence interval) than the average rating for councils

State-wide, and is rated relatively the same as councils

in the Regional Centres group (index scores of 60 and

58 respectively).

• Residents aged 18 to 34 years (index score of 63)

rate overall performance highest, and significantly

higher than the Council average.

• Conversely, residents aged 50 to 64 years (index

score of 49) rate overall performance lowest, and

significantly lower than the Council average.

More than twice as many residents rate Warrnambool

City Council’s overall performance as ‘very good’ or

‘good’ (44%), as those who rate it ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’

(21%). A further 35% sit mid-scale, rating Council’s

overall performance as ‘average’.

Overall performance

7


6056 58

Warrnambool Regional Centres State-wide

Overall Council performance

Results shown are index scores out of 100.

Contact with council

Two-thirds (66%) of Warrnambool City Council

residents have had contact with Council in the last 12

months – a significant increase from 2018 (59%).

• The increase in the overall rate of contact is largely

driven by residents aged 18 to 34 years, who had the

most contact with council (72%) in 2019. Rate of

contact among this cohort increased by a significant

22 percentage points from 2018.

• Conversely, residents aged 65+ years had the least

contact with council (57%).

The main methods of contacting Council are in person

(35%) and by telephone (31%). Rate of contact via

telephone increased by five percentage points since

2018. Email communications increased from 11% in

2017 to 19% in 2019.

Overall, newsletters sent via email (28%) and mail

(24%) are considered the best way for Council to

inform residents about news, information and upcoming

events. While e-newsletters are popular among a

sizeable number of residents both under and over 50

years of age, social media updates (27%) have

supplanted print newsletters sent via mail (20%) among

residents under 50 years of age.

Customer service

Warrnambool City Council’s customer service index of

73 is the same as the result for 2018, following a

significant four point decline from 77 in 2017 to 73 in

2018. The 2018 to 2019 performance rating on

customer service is seven points down on Council’s

highest result of 80, achieved in 2013.

Performance on this measure is rated in line with State-

wide and Regional Centres group averages (index

scores of 71 and 72 respectively).

Two in five residents (39%) rate Council’s customer

service as ‘very good’, with another 31% rating it as

‘good’. Just 12% rate customer service as ‘very poor’ or

‘poor’. A further 17% provide an ‘average’ rating.

• Residents aged 18 to 34 years, who had the most

contact with Council in 2019, rate customer service

highest (index score of 77).

Customer service ratings based on the method used in

the most recent contact are highest for in-person

correspondence (index score of 82), which represents

a significant increase from 2018 (index score of 74).

Customer contact and service

8


Council direction

Warrnambool City Council’s overall direction index

score is 50, which represents a (not significant)

increase of four points from the 2018 result.

Residents outlook for the future is positive. Residents

tend to believe Council is generally headed in the right

(55%) versus the wrong direction (38%).

Rates and services trade-offs

Over half of Warrnambool City Council residents (54%)

state that they would prefer ‘service cuts’ to keep

Council rates at the same level as they are now. This

compares with 30% of residents who indicate they

prefer ‘rate rises’ to improve local services. A further

16% ‘can’t say’ at this time.

• Men (61%) and residents aged 50 to 64 years (62%)

are even more likely than other resident groups to

call for service cuts to keep rates at current levels.

Council direction


9

Top performing areas

The top three performing service areas for

Warrnambool City Council are:

• Appearance of public areas (index score of 79)

• Emergency and disaster management (index score

of 74)

• Art centres and libraries (index score of 73).

Council’s rating for the appearance of public areas

increased by a significant five points from 2018.

Council now performs significantly higher than both the

State-wide and Regional Centres group averages on

this measure (index scores of 72 and 74 respectively).

Council’s performance ratings improved significantly in

ten service areas in the past year, stemming a series of

ratings’ declines that occurred between the 2017 and

2018 surveys. The most improved measures in 2019

are business and community development and tourism

(index score of 67) and traffic management (index

score of 59), ratings for both of which improved by

seven index points from 2018.

Council also now performs significantly higher than the

State-wide and Regional Centres group averages on

the measure of business and community development

and tourism (index score of 61 each).

Areas for improvement

Council did not experience any significant declines in

ratings in the past year. The Council areas that rate

lowest relative to its performance in other areas

include:

• Parking facilities (index score of 45, a significant

increase of five index points from 2018)

• Consultation and engagement (index score of 47)

• Community decisions (index score of 48).

These same areas rated lowest in 2018 and it is

important to note that Council performs significantly

lower than both the State-wide and Regional Centres

group averages in all three areas.

In keeping with these findings, one in five residents

(22%) volunteer community consultation as a council

area in need of improvement, followed by parking

availability (11%) and financial management (10%).

Top performing areas and areas for improvement

10


The individual service areas that have the strongest

influence on the overall performance rating (based on

regression analysis) are:

• Decisions made in the interest of the community

• Community consultation and engagement.

Council’s decisions made in the community’s interest

and community consultation and engagement have

some of the lowest performance ratings (48 and 47

respectively) and are two areas that could drive up

overall performance perceptions if attended to

effectively.

Service areas with a moderate influence on overall

performance include:

• Condition of sealed local roads

• Town planning

• Traffic management.

The condition of sealed local roads, Warrnambool City

Council’s town planning, traffic management, and also

lobbying on behalf of the community and how well it

informs the community, have lower (though still

positive) performance ratings overall. Continuing efforts

in these areas has the capacity to lift Council’s overall

performance rating.

Looking at key service areas only, elderly support

services has the strongest positive performance index

and a moderate influence on the overall performance

rating. Currently, Warrnambool City Council is

performing well in this area (performance index of 71)

and while it should remain a focus, there is greater

work to be done elsewhere.

Family support services in another strong positive

performance area for Warrnambool City Council,

although it has a weak negative influence on

perceptions of overall performance. Some mitigation of

negative views towards this service area is warranted.

In summary, good communication and

transparency with residents about decisions the

Council has made in the community’s interest, as

well as improved community consultation and

engagement, will best help to drive up overall

opinion of the Council’s performance.

Influences on perceptions of overall performance


11

On 10 of the service areas evaluated, perceptions

of Council’s performance improved significantly –

this is a positive result for Council.

In terms of priorities for the year ahead, Warrnambool

City Council should focus on maintaining and improving

performance in the individual service areas that most

influence perception of overall performance:


• Consultation and engagement

• Conditions of sealed local roads

• Town planning

• Traffic management

• Lobbying

• Informing the community.

Council should also focus attention on service areas

where current performance levels are low and remain

significantly lower than the State-wide and Regional

Centres group council averages.

• Areas that stand out in need of attention include

parking facilities (index score of 45), as well as

consultation and engagement (index of 47) and

community decisions (index of 48) as mentioned

above as strong influences of performance.

As mentioned, these three areas represent Council’s

lowest rated service areas and the only areas where

Council rates significantly lower than State-wide and

Regional Centres group averages.

A significant perceptions gap exists in all three of the

aforementioned areas, by which rated importance

exceeds perceived performance by a wide margin:

• Community decisions (margin of 35 points)

• Parking facilities (margin of 33 points)

• Consultation and engagement (margin of 33 points).

More generally, consideration should also be given to

residents aged 50 to 64 years, who appear to be

driving negative opinion in a number of areas in 2019.

• It is also important not to ignore, and to learn from,

what is working amongst other groups, especially

residents aged 18 to 34 years, and use these

lessons to build on performance experience and

perceptions.

On the positive side, Council should look to build upon

its improved performance on numerous measures in

the past year, most notably business and community

development and tourism and traffic management.

Focus areas for coming 12 months

12


Further areas of exploration


13

An approach we recommend is to further mine the

survey data to better understand the profile of these

over and under-performing demographic groups. This

can be achieved via additional consultation and data

interrogation, self-mining the SPSS data provided, or

via the dashboard portal available to the council.

Please note that the category descriptions for the

coded open-ended responses are generic summaries

only. We recommend further analysis of the detailed

cross tabulations and the actual verbatim responses,

with a view to understanding the responses of the key

gender and age groups, especially any target groups

identified as requiring attention.

A personal briefing by senior JWS Research

representatives is also available to assist in

providing both explanation and interpretation of

the results. Please contact JWS Research on:

03 8685 8555

Summary of

findings

14

Summary of core measures

15

Index scores


74

80

7371

72

77

73 73

53

49 49

53

5858

6463

5354

5957

5656

58 58

5051

55

47

5051 51

46 48

57

6059

5554

59

5353

46

53

48

38

46

59

4650

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Sealed

Local

Roads

Community

Consultation

Customer

Service

Overall

Council

Direction

Overall

Performance

Advocacy Making

Community

Decisions

Summary of core measures

Performance MeasuresWarrnambool

2019

Warrnambool

2018

Regional

Centres

2019

State-wide

2019

Highest

score

Lowest

score

Overall Performance 56 57 58 60Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 50-

64 years

Community Consultation

(Community consultation and

engagement)

47 50 54 56

Aged 65+

years,

Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 35-

64 years

Advocacy

(Lobbying on behalf of the community)53 53 54 54

Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 35-

64 years

Making Community Decisions

(Decisions made in the interest of the

community)

48 46 52 55Aged 65+

years

Aged 50-

64 years

Sealed Local Roads

(Condition of sealed local roads)58 53 57 56

Aged 65+

years,

Women

Men, Aged

35-49

years

Customer Service 73 73 72 71Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 50-

64 years

Overall Council Direction 50 46 52 53Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 50-

64 years


16

Summary of key community satisfaction

17

Key measures summary results (%)


10

7

9

9

13

39

34

23

26

25

38

31

35

32

33

29

27

17

14

24

17

20

11

8

7

12

8

16

11

4

3

8

1

Overall Performance


Advocacy

Making Community Decisions

Sealed Local Roads

Customer Service

Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say

23 50 24 3Overall Council Direction

Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say

83

78

80

81

80

72

72

76

73

78

81

72

76

81

Community decisions

Parking facilities

Consultation & engagement

Informing the community

Sealed local roads

Lobbying

Town planning policy

Environmental sustainability

Traffic management

Local streets & footpaths

Waste management

Business & community dev.

Population growth

Elderly support services

48

45

47

54

58

53

56

61

59

64

68

61

64

71

Individual service areas importance vs performance

18Net differentials are calculated based on the un-rounded importance and performance scores, then rounded to the nearest whole number.


Importance (index scores) Performance (index scores) Net Differential

Service areas where importance exceeds performance by 10 points or more, suggesting further investigation is

necessary:

-35

-33

-33

-27

-23

-19

-16

-15

-14

-14

-13

-11

-11

-10

We use regression analysis to investigate which

individual service areas, such as community

consultation, condition of sealed local roads, etc. (the

independent variables) are influencing respondent

perceptions of overall council performance (the

dependent variable).

In the charts that follow:

• The horizontal axis represents the council

performance index for each individual service.

Service areas appearing on the right-side of the

chart have a higher performance index than those on

the left.

• The vertical axis represents the Standardised Beta

Coefficient from the multiple regression performed.

This measures the contribution of each service area

to the model. Service areas near the top of the chart

have a greater positive effect on overall performance

ratings than service areas located closer to the axis.

• The charts are based on unweighted data, which

means the service performance indices in the

regression charts may vary by +/- 1-2 points on the

indices reported in charts and tables elsewhere in

this report.

The regressions are shown on the following two charts.

1. The first chart shows the results of a regression

analysis of all individual service areas selected by

Council.

2. The second chart shows the results of a

regression performed on a smaller set of service

areas, being those with a moderate-to-strong

influence on overall performance. Service areas

with a weak influence on overall performance (i.e. a

low Standardised Beta Coefficient) have been

excluded from the analysis.

Key insights from this analysis are derived from

the second chart.

Regression analysis explained

19


Influence on overall performance: all service areas

20

The multiple regression analysis model above (all service areas) has an R-squared value of 0.643 and adjusted R-square value of 0.619,

which means that 64% of the variance in community perceptions of overall performance can be predicted from these variables. The overall

model effect was statistically significant at p = 0.0001, F = 26.95. This model should be interpreted with some caution as some data is not

normally distributed and not all service areas have linear correlations.

2019 regression analysis (all service areas)


Influence on overall performance: key service areas

21The multiple regression analysis model above (reduced set of service areas) has an R-squared value of 0.620 and adjusted R-square value of

0.610, which means that 62% of the variance in community perceptions of overall performance can be predicted from these variables. The

overall model effect was statistically significant at p = 0.0001, F = 63.45.

2019 regression analysis (key service areas)


Community consultation

Lobbying


Traffic management

Parking facilities

Family support services


Town planning

Community decisions

Condition of sealed local roads

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Gre

ate

r p

ositiv

e in

flu

en

ce

on

Ove

rall

Pe

rfo

rma

nce

Gre

ate

r n

eg

ative

in

flu

en

ce

on

Ove

rall

Pe

rfo

rma

nce

Performance Index Very GoodVery Poor

Focus on these areas

satisfactorily to ensure negative

perceptions do not have an overly

negative impact on community

perceptions of overall

performance.

Key positive influence on overall rating

and should remain a focus - but

currently performing ‘well’ here.

Improvements will have a moderate

influence on overall perceptions.

Should remain a focus as currently performing ‘poorly’

here. Improvements will have a strong influence on

overall perceptions.

83

81

81

81

80

80

79

78

78

76

76

74

74

73

73

73

72

72

72

70

69

67

65

64

Community decisions


Waste management


Sealed local roads



Parking facilities



Population growth



Bus/community dev./tourism

Recreational facilities

Traffic management



Lobbying

Planning & building permits

Tourism development

Enforcement of local laws


Community & cultural

Individual service area importance

2019 individual service area importance (index scores)

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012


22Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council?

Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 31 Councils asked group: 4

Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

82

79

80

78

82

78

83

78

77

73

76

76

75

75

74

74

71

74

72

72

71

69

64

63

n/a

79

77

77

81

75

79

74

76

73

76

73

76

73

74

70

71

71

70

68

71

70

64

63

n/a

76

77

76

n/a

74

n/a

75

77

71

76

77

73

76

75

71

n/a

72

68

69

n/a

72

65

64

n/a

80

78

75

n/a

77

n/a

75

79

73

75

76

78

76

75

73

n/a

75

72

70

n/a

71

65

65

n/a

79

80

76

n/a

74

n/a

76

78

73

77

77

75

75

74

73

n/a

73

71

74

n/a

71

67

65

n/a

80

78

76

n/a

74

n/a

74

77

72

77

74

74

73

73

71

n/a

72

71

71

n/a

73

65

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Individual service area importance

2019 individual service area importance (%)

41

47

41

40

41

44

34

42

39

35

34

24

27

30

25

30

27

25

23

20

24

18

16

13

44

38

42

42

41

38

46

36

38

40

40

49

44

42

46

39

41

42

43

43

39

39

39

41

12

11

16

15

16

16

19

17

21

19

20

24

21

22

26

25

28

29

27

30

29

35

33

36

2

1

1

2

2

2

4

2

4

5

1

5

5

3

3

3

3

3

4

6

6

7

7

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

2

3

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

4

2

1

1


Community decisions

Waste management


Sealed local roads




Parking facilities


Population growth


Lobbying




Traffic management




Tourism development




Extremely important Very important Fairly important

Not that important Not at all important Can't say


23Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council?


Individual service area performance

2019 individual service area performance (index scores)


24

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

74

75

72

70

69

64

67

66

66

67

60

63

63

58

58

62

55

52

53

54

54

53

46

50

39

74

73

72

71

71

68

67

68

67

70

64

63

67

55

61

63

62

61

49

58

60

59

51

55

49

76

70

74

68

72

71

67

71

66

70

65

61

66

58

58

63

58

57

49

56

55

54

51

51

54

77

72

76

71

72

69

68

70

69

74

58

63

64

65

60

65

54

62

53

57

58

55

50

50

48

77

74

77

75

74

n/a

73

76

70

71

70

68

66

64

61

67

n/a

62

n/a

61

61

59

n/a

58

50

82

73

78

73

75

n/a

72

75

71

73

70

68

67

65

62

68

n/a

65

n/a

61

62

60

n/a

58

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

57

n/a

56

n/a

79

74

73

71

70

70

70

70

69

68

67

66

64

64

64

61

61

59

58

56

54

53

48

47

45






Tourism development




Waste management


Disadvantaged support serv.

Population growth





Traffic management

Sealed local roads



Lobbying

Community decisions


Parking facilities

Q2. How has Council performed on [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] over the last 12 months?



Individual service area performance

25

2019 individual service area performance (%)


37

24

24

22

23

22

21

20

20

18

19

17

15

13

14

13

12

11

12

10

9

9

9

7

8

46

45

43

44

42

42

42

43

42

40

38

40

39

38

36

35

37

37

32

32

29

26

25

23

20

13

22

21

20

21

19

21

26

23

24

29

28

24

27

27

28

31

33

28

30

30

33

29

32

31

3

4

8

7

10

3

4

6

7

3

9

6

8

11

13

6

11

11

5

20

13

17

20

24

27

1

1

2

2

4

2

2

2

6

2

4

11

9

1

3

3

3

8

7

8

16

12

14

5

2

4

1

15

10

5

6

14

6

10

1

17

5

6

19

1

12

8

1

3




Tourism development

Waste management








Population growth

Sealed local roads

Traffic management

Disadvantaged support serv.






Lobbying

Community decisions


Parking facilities


Q2. How has Council performed on [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] over the last 12 months?


Significantly Higher than

State-wide Average

Significantly Lower than

State-wide Average


26

• Local streets & footpaths

• Enforcement of local laws

• Family support services

• Elderly support services

• Disadvantaged support serv.

• Appearance of public areas

• Bus/community dev./tourism

• Planning permits

• Population growth

• Tourism development

• Consultation & engagement

• Informing the community

• Parking facilities

• Making community decisions

Individual service area performance vs State-wide average

Individual service area performance vs group average

27


Significantly Higher than

Group Average

Significantly Lower than

Group Average

• Local streets & footpaths

• Enforcement of local laws

• Elderly support services

• Disadvantaged support serv.

• Appearance of public areas

• Bus/community dev./tourism

• Planning permits

• Consultation & engagement

• Parking facilities

• Making community decisions

22

9

10

11

1

8

5

2

1

2

3

5

3

15

5

6

12

4

11

4

7

2

4

2

9

4

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Areas for improvement

28

2019 areas for improvement (%)- Top mentions only -


22

11

10

9

7

6

5

5

5

5

5

5

4


Parking Availability

Financial Management

Sealed Road Maintenance

Local/Community Support

Communication

Beach/Foreshore/Creeks/Rivers/Lakes

Council Management

Rates - Too Expensive

Waste Management

Environmental Issues

Harmony Within Council

Nothing

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q17. What does Warrnambool City Council MOST need to do to improve its performance?


Note: Significant differences have not been applied to this chart.

A verbatim listing of responses to this question can be found in the accompanying dashboard.

DETAILED

FINDINGS

29

Overall

performance

30

57

59

58

58

60

57

56

55

53

59

59

60

57

61

59

60

58

56

57

59

55

55

50

54

57

53

51

59

60

53

58

48

53

55

53

49

70

61

64

n/a

61

63

62

62

59

70

60

64

n/a

61

64

64

64

58

65

60

58

n/a

55

58

54

58

55

Overall performance

2019 overall performance (index scores)

63p

60p

59

58

58

56

54

53

49q

18-34

State-wide

Women

Regional Centres

65+

Warrnambool

35-49

Men

50-64


31

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Warrnambool City Council, not just on one or two

issues, BUT OVERALL across all responsibility areas? Has it been very good, good, average, poor or very poor?



Overall performance

32

Overall performance (%)


10

10

10

10

8

13

12

6

10

8

8

12

13

7

7

11

34

34

36

30

31

43

47

39

39

37

33

34

45

34

20

32

35

36

38

37

35

31

29

37

35

37

31

38

27

34

45

36

14

12

10

12

17

9

8

12

10

11

17

11

12

15

18

13

7

8

5

11

9

3

3

4

5

5

10

4

4

10

10

6

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

2

1

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

2012 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Warrnambool City Council, not just on one or two

issues, BUT OVERALL across all responsibility areas? Has it been very good, good, average, poor or very poor?


Customer

service

33


2019 contact with council (%)

Have had contact

54

6163

68

60

54

59

66

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


34Q5a. Have you or any member of your household had any recent contact with Warrnambool City Council in any of the following ways?


50

62

73

65

59

63

57

63

53

47

55

68

53

54

58

53

56

49

48

62

73

71

60

58

59

52

54

74

65

75

70

68

60

71

58

53

63

63

74

66

63

61

64

n/a

50

64

58

70

68

61

60

65

n/a

47

53

57

61

58

54

61

50

n/a

39


2019 contact with council (%)

72

70

70

67

66

63

63

62

57

18-34

Women

35-49

50-64

Warrnambool

State-wide

Men

Regional Centres

65+


35

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q5a. Have you or any member of your household had any recent contact with Warrnambool City Council in any of the following ways?



70

77

73

74

73

72

70

68

75

82

80

77

79

72

72

69

74

74

68

74

72

71

77

70

69

71

75

69

69

71

72

74

71

70

73

72

65

75

73

77

79

n/a

72

72

75

79

80

80

81

80

n/a

71

79

80

71

72

74

75

73

n/a

71

76

76

Customer service rating

36

2019 customer service rating (index scores)


77

76

73

73

73

72

71

70

69

18-34

Women

Warrnambool

35-49

65+

Regional Centres

State-wide

Men

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Warrnambool City Council for customer service? Please keep in mind we do not

mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received.

Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months.

Councils asked state-wide: 63 Councils asked group: 8


Customer service rating

37

Customer service rating (%)


39

34

42

34

34

39

44

34

33

36

34

44

41

45

33

38

31

39

36

40

36

33

36

39

36

33

33

30

34

28

29

34

17

15

11

14

16

14

10

16

17

17

16

17

17

11

21

17

8

7

6

6

5

6

2

6

7

6

8

8

8

8

9

6

4

4

3

6

8

7

3

3

6

6

7

2

8

5

5

1

1

1

3

1

1

2

1

1

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

2012 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+






Method of contact with council

2019 method of contact (%)

23

26

31

33 33

35

11

15

19

7

1112

4

7

10

6

910

3 3 3

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


38

By EmailBy Text

Message

By Social

Media

In Writing Via WebsiteIn Person By Telephone

Q5a. Have you or any member of your household had any recent contact with Warrnambool City Council in any of the following ways?


Note: Respondents could name multiple contacts methods so responses may add to more than 100%

74

74

79

70

62

67

n/a

83

100

77

66

63

59

81

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Customer service rating by method of last contact

2019 customer service rating (index score by method of last contact)

82

76*

71

70*

66

65*

42*

In person

Via website

By telephone

In writing

By email

By social media

By text message

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012


39






*Caution: small sample size < n=30

Customer service rating by method of last contact

2019 customer service rating (% by method of last contact)

51

36

34

17

36

41

29

32

35

56

27

5

34

15

31

16

17

10

36

32

3

9

10

17

6

1

5

10

12

34

1In person

Via website*

By telephone

In writing*

By email

By social media*

By text message*



40





*Caution: small sample size < n=30

Communication

41

Communication summary

Overall preferred forms of

communication• Newsletter sent via email (28%)

Preferred forms of communication

among over 50s• Newsletter sent via mail (28%)

Preferred forms of communication

among under 50s• Newsletter sent via email (29%)

Greatest change since

2018


42

• Newsletter sent via email (+6)

• Note: Social Media has been added in 2019.

Best form of communication

2019 best form of communication (%)

32

24 24

2122

28

18

12

10

1516

11

6

10

6

3

7

2

17

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


43Q13. If Warrnambool City Council was going to get in touch with you to inform you about Council news and information and upcoming events,

which ONE of the following is the BEST way to communicate with you?


Council

Website

Text

MessageCouncil

Newsletter as

Local Paper Insert

Council

Newsletter

via Mail

Council

Newsletter

via Email

Advertising in

a Local

Newspaper

Social

Media

Best form of communication: under 50s

2019 under 50s best form of communication (%)

31

2120

21

19

29

14

6

8

12

14

4

8

16

8

4

12

2

27

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019




Base: All respondents aged under 50. Councils asked state-wide: 31 Councils asked group: 6

Council

Website

Text

MessageCouncil

Newsletter as

Local Paper Insert

Council

Newsletter

via Mail

Council

Newsletter

via Email

Advertising in

a Local

Newspaper

Social

Media

2019 best form of communication: over 50s

2019 over 50s best form of communication (%)

32

2928

20

25

27

22

19

12

1817

19

34

3

1 12

6

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019




Base: All respondents aged over 50. Councils asked state-wide: 31 Councils asked group: 6

Council

Website

Text

MessageCouncil

Newsletter as

Local Paper Insert

Council

Newsletter

via Mail

Council

Newsletter

via Email

Advertising in

a Local

Newspaper

Social

Media

Council direction

46

Council direction summary


47

• Aged 50-64 yearsLeast satisfied with Council

direction

• 55% right direction (15% definitely and 40% probably)

• 38% wrong direction (17% probably and 21% definitely)Direction headed

Council direction• 50% stayed about the same, up 2 points on 2018

• 23% improved, up 1 point on 2018

• 24% deteriorated, down 5 points on 2018

Most satisfied with Council

direction• Aged 18-34 years

Rates vs services trade-off • 30% prefer rate rise, down 1 point on 2018

• 54% prefer service cuts, up 5 points on 2018

Overall council direction last 12 months

48

2019 overall direction (index scores)


45

45

52

53

46

54

41

47

44

57

58

53

55

59

66

57

61

58

51

47

51

51

46

44

48

45

39

51

42

53

53

38

31

33

34

35

53

50

53

n/a

48

48

46

46

44

65

54

53

n/a

53

47

51

53

46

50

47

52

n/a

46

43

43

44

45

59p

55

53

52

50

48

45

44q

43

18-34

Women

State-wide

Regional Centres

Warrnambool

65+

35-49

Men

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Warrnambool City Council’s overall performance?



Overall council direction last 12 months

2019 overall council direction (%)

23

22

31

16

11

16

23

13

19

21

18

29

35

16

20

20

50

48

53

59

52

61

59

62

62

57

51

48

44

56

46

53

24

29

13

24

34

20

16

21

14

17

30

19

18

25

34

23

3

1

3

2

2

3

2

4

5

4

1

4

2

3

1

4

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

2012 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say


49Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Warrnambool City Council’s overall performance?


Right / wrong direction

50

2019 right / wrong direction (%)


15

9

20

15

16

14

25

4

12

16

40

46

47

40

35

44

33

47

37

44

17

20

11

17

15

18

17

18

19

13

21

18

11

21

28

15

20

19

28

19

8

7

11

8

7

8

6

12

5

8

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Definitely right direction Probably right direction Probably wrong direction

Definitely wrong direction Can't say

Q8. Would you say your local Council is generally heading in the right direction or the wrong direction?


Rates / services trade-off

51

2019 rates / services trade-off (%)


9

8

10

10

10

8

10

7

8

11

21

23

23

20

17

25

25

25

16

18

22

28

22

23

25

19

26

21

21

20

32

21

27

30

36

29

25

34

41

32

16

20

18

18

12

19

15

13

14

20

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Definitely prefer rate rise Probably prefer rate rise Probably prefer service cuts

Definitely prefer service cuts Can't say

Q10. If you had to choose, would you prefer to see council rate rises to improve local services OR would you prefer to see cuts in council

services to keep council rates at the same level as they are now?


Individual

service areas

52

Community consultation and engagement importance

53

2019 Consultation and engagement importance (index scores)


80

80

77

75

78

74

79

75

74

77

79

78

67

75

72

77

76

74

77

77

73

72

74

71

75

75

75

77

79

77

73

77

77

79

74

74

77

78

80

68

74

71

73

n/a

74

75

78

76

68

74

72

75

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

82

81

81

81

80

77

77

76q

74q

Women

50-64

35-49

18-34

Warrnambool

Men

65+

Regional Centres

State-wide

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community consultation and engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Community consultation and engagement importance

54

2019 Consultation and engagement importance (%)


40

37

31

31

34

31

26

29

33

37

42

39

44

48

30

42

40

37

39

41

41

46

41

42

39

45

46

39

33

49

15

17

27

23

23

23

25

24

20

20

11

16

16

14

16

2

4

3

3

2

4

2

4

3

3

1

5

3

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community consultation and engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Community consultation and engagement performance

55

2019 Consultation and engagement performance (index scores)


55

55

52

52

49

50

51

52

44

55

54

56

59

55

55

56

52

52

54

52

47

56

52

51

51

52

49

56

53

50

53

53

50

47

50

46

57

n/a

58

60

61

58

54

59

53

57

n/a

56

64

60

58

55

55

53

57

n/a

54

62

57

56

55

51

54

56p

54p

51

51

49

47

46

43

43

State-wide

Regional Centres

65+

18-34

Women

Warrnambool

Men

35-49

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community consultation and engagement’ over the last 12 months?



Community consultation and engagement performance

56

2019 Consultation and engagement performance (%)


7

8

7

7

8

7

9

5

9

7

7

8

8

5

9

7

23

26

31

28

25

34

35

34

30

30

21

24

25

25

16

23

32

32

36

34

33

35

35

36

31

32

30

34

35

26

31

34

24

19

15

18

21

12

13

15

15

17

28

19

22

26

24

23

12

11

5

9

9

4

5

4

6

7

11

13

8

18

18

6

3

3

5

5

4

8

3

6

9

7

3

2

2

2

6

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

2012 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community consultation and engagement’ over the last 12 months?


Lobbying on behalf of the community importance

57

2019 Lobbying importance (index scores)


70

77

73

72

70

73

72

67

68

75

70

75

70

72

70

63

70

69

66

74

73

68

69

68

68

62

69

76

73

71

72

68

71

70

70

69

72

75

78

71

n/a

70

65

67

70

75

74

74

71

n/a

71

66

68

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

76

75

74

72

70

70

69

68

67q

35-49

Women

50-64

Warrnambool

Regional Centres

65+

18-34

Men

State-wide

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Lobbying on behalf of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Lobbying on behalf of the community importance

58

2019 Lobbying importance (%)


27

31

20

21

25

25

25

21

24

23

30

21

35

36

19

44

36

43

39

42

40

41

38

41

43

45

45

44

39

48

21

24

29

29

28

25

27

28

25

22

21

25

16

15

27

5

6

4

7

4

8

6

8

7

8

3

8

3

6

4

3

2

1

1

1

2

2

4

1

2

3

5

1

1

3

2

1

2

1

2

1

1

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Lobbying on behalf of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Lobbying on behalf of the community performance

59

2019 Lobbying performance (index scores)


52

56

53

54

54

53

52

50

52

58

62

59

54

54

59

59

55

60

56

53

54

53

52

54

54

54

53

61

54

55

55

55

55

55

53

50

60

63

62

56

n/a

59

57

58

57

63

62

61

55

n/a

60

59

60

55

62

56

58

55

n/a

57

55

54

53

56

55

55

54

54

53

51

49

49

18-34

65+

Women

State-wide

Regional Centres

Warrnambool

Men

50-64

35-49

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Lobbying on behalf of the community’ over the last 12 months?



Lobbying on behalf of the community performance

60

2019 Lobbying performance (%)


9

7

9

6

7

7

10

4

6

6

8

9

11

4

7

11

26

27

34

28

31

33

34

38

25

26

22

29

31

31

20

20

33

31

31

38

30

33

30

37

31

34

35

30

32

28

35

36

17

19

10

13

16

11

12

11

13

14

20

14

16

16

21

16

8

6

5

6

6

2

4

4

5

6

8

8

6

14

9

5

8

10

10

8

11

13

10

7

20

14

7

9

4

7

8

12

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

2012 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Lobbying on behalf of the community’ over the last 12 months?


Decisions made in the interest of the community

importance

61

2019 Community decisions made importance (index scores)


84

82

79

81

82

81

81

80

84

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

82

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

82

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

86

84

84

83

83

83

82

80q

79

18-34

Women

35-49

65+

Warrnambool

Men

Regional Centres

State-wide

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?




importance

62

2019 Community decisions made importance (%)


47

44

39

43

44

50

53

48

45

42

38

40

42

40

43

34

37

40

30

45

11

14

15

13

10

12

10

8

19

8

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

4

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?



performance

63

2019 Community decisions made performance (index scores)


54

52

52

47

46

46

45

40

43

54

58

52

48

50

51

51

49

47

54

49

51

55

50

51

52

51

47

55

49

52

59

54

50

47

46

45

57

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

55p

54

52p

50

48

48

48

43

42

State-wide

65+

Regional Centres

18-34

Women

Warrnambool

Men

35-49

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ over the last 12 months?




performance

64

2019 Community decisions made performance (%)


9

6

7

6

8

7

6

8

10

10

6

5

14

25

22

29

26

26

30

29

27

23

32

27

17

22

29

34

33

36

32

33

33

28

30

22

23

32

40

20

20

17

17

20

14

16

21

19

16

19

33

15

16

15

11

9

10

7

9

15

17

19

23

13

9

1

3

3

6

4

10

7

1

1

2

1

1

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ over the last 12 months?


The condition of sealed local roads in your area

importance

65

2019 Sealed local roads importance (index scores)


84

83

83

82

79

80

80

81

81

85

81

84

81

77

78

78

80

83

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

78

76

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

76

77

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

77

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

82

82

81

80

80

80

79

79

79

35-49

50-64

Women

Warrnambool

18-34

Men

State-wide

Regional Centres

65+

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?




importance

66

2019 Sealed local roads importance (%)


41

45

43

37

36

40

42

47

43

40

34

41

39

39

45

45

40

42

31

41

47

48

16

13

15

16

18

17

15

18

15

13

16

2

3

2

2

1

2

1

4

1

1

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?



performance

67

2019 Sealed local roads performance (index scores)


59

52

52

53

54

54

53

44

53

54

43

45

49

53

50

53

49

56

47

49

50

49

54

47

54

50

48

56

51

48

53

55

53

55

55

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

60

58

58

57

57

56

56

56

65+

Women

18-34

Warrnambool

Regional Centres

50-64

State-wide

35-49

Men

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?




performance

68

2019 Sealed local roads performance (%)


13

12

10

7

13

13

12

13

13

10

16

14

12

38

33

28

28

30

33

35

36

41

43

33

34

41

27

23

27

29

25

28

28

26

27

27

26

28

26

11

19

17

21

17

16

14

10

12

10

10

11

13

11

14

17

14

14

10

9

15

8

10

16

13

7

2

1

1

1

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?


Informing the community importance

69

2019 Informing community importance (index scores)


75

82

80

75

78

77

73

81

75

76

80

78

78

77

77

73

77

74

74

79

78

74

76

76

73

78

76

72

75

75

77

75

76

76

78

75

73

78

79

76

76

n/a

73

77

75

75

78

78

75

76

n/a

73

75

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

83

83

81

81

81

79

78

77

75q

18-34

Women

50-64

35-49

Warrnambool

Regional Centres

Men

65+

State-wide

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Informing the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Informing the community importance

70

2019 Informing community importance (%)


44

37

32

35

29

33

30

32

40

39

48

49

47

44

34

38

40

46

40

46

41

46

41

38

39

37

35

32

41

44

16

18

18

20

20

22

22

22

18

17

15

16

17

12

19

2

4

3

4

4

3

2

4

3

3

1

2

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Informing the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Informing the community performance

71

2019 Informing community performance (index scores)


59

58

59

53

54

54

54

55

46

59

61

58

60

61

60

60

60

57

59

57

59

55

52

55

55

57

55

61

64

58

60

54

58

55

56

54

62

62

n/a

64

62

61

57

57

60

61

64

n/a

63

61

62

61

64

56

60

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

60p

59

56

55

55

54

53

51

49

State-wide

18-34

Regional Centres

Women

65+

Warrnambool

Men

35-49

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Informing the community’ over the last 12 months?



Informing the community performance

72

2019 Informing community performance (%)


10

11

13

11

11

11

12

13

11

8

11

13

6

9

10

32

30

35

30

35

38

42

35

32

33

32

39

32

27

30

30

29

32

35

31

34

29

31

30

28

31

24

34

26

35

20

18

13

13

16

10

12

14

18

22

17

20

16

23

20

8

10

5

9

6

5

4

5

7

8

7

4

12

13

4

1

1

3

3

2

2

1

3

2

1

2

1

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Informing the community’ over the last 12 months?


The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area

importance

73

2019 Streets and footpaths importance (index scores)


78

79

77

75

78

78

79

78

76

80

79

76

68

80

77

77

77

71

80

75

77

75

79

77

77

79

74

79

83

79

78

79

77

77

76

79

83

79

78

75

81

77

n/a

78

73

81

77

77

76

78

78

n/a

78

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

77

n/a

n/a

n/a

81

80

78

78

77

77

77

77

74q

Women

35-49

Warrnambool

18-34

65+

State-wide

Regional Centres

50-64

Men

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?




importance

74

2019 Streets and footpaths importance (%)


34

36

31

34

35

33

33

34

33

25

42

35

39

26

34

46

41

43

42

48

47

46

44

45

50

42

45

41

56

44

19

19

25

19

15

17

17

18

18

23

16

18

19

17

22

4

1

3

1

1

3

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?



performance

75

2019 Streets and footpaths performance (index scores)


57

57

57

58

59

62

57

59

58

56

58

60

55

52

56

51

57

57

55

62

59

58

56

55

60

58

57

70

66

69

65

61

61

62

58

58

62

63

65

64

62

65

65

n/a

58

65

66

65

65

65

66

63

n/a

58

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

57

66

65

64

64

64

63

62

61q

59q

18-34

35-49

Men

Warrnambool

Women

65+

50-64

Regional Centres

State-wide

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ over the last 12 months?




performance

76

2019 Streets and footpaths performance (%)


19

16

10

17

20

18

19

14

16

18

20

21

18

22

16

38

33

33

33

42

37

41

35

36

42

34

38

42

29

41

29

25

33

27

22

29

25

28

27

27

31

29

30

30

28

9

17

16

12

11

10

11

14

13

8

9

6

7

13

9

6

8

8

11

5

4

3

7

6

6

5

6

4

6

6

1

1

2

2

2

1

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ over the last 12 months?


Traffic management importance

77

2019 Traffic management importance (index scores)


75

75

75

74

74

74

72

70

74

75

62

73

72

70

71

66

71

74

75

67

74

72

71

72

68

70

72

76

72

75

71

73

72

72

72

74

75

72

76

70

73

n/a

70

70

76

77

66

75

72

71

n/a

67

69

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

74

74

73

73

73

71

71

71

65+

18-34

Women

State-wide

Warrnambool

Regional Centres

Men

35-49

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Traffic management’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Traffic management importance

78

2019 Traffic management importance (%)


27

29

23

26

24

26

22

30

27

26

28

29

26

26

28

41

40

40

41

48

45

46

40

41

39

42

41

37

38

46

28

26

31

24

23

24

26

23

28

30

27

28

32

31

23

3

4

4

6

4

4

5

6

3

4

2

2

5

3

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Traffic management’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Traffic management performance

79

2019 Traffic management performance (index scores)


53

53

56

51

53

52

57

52

52

63

61

61

55

63

61

59

60

60

55

58

59

55

61

57

59

56

57

65

63

62

63

62

62

60

61

57

64

64

n/a

63

62

62

60

60

60

68

66

n/a

67

66

65

60

65

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

58

n/a

n/a

64

61

60

59

59

59

58

56

50q

18-34

Women

Regional Centres

35-49

65+

Warrnambool

State-wide

Men

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Traffic management’ over the last 12 months?



Traffic management performance

80

2019 Traffic management performance (%)


14

11

10

11

12

14

17

9

13

13

16

15

18

9

16

36

29

42

39

43

39

42

37

38

34

38

47

31

32

32

27

30

32

25

30

29

28

31

29

29

25

22

31

22

32

13

16

11

13

10

10

9

13

12

13

13

12

9

23

10

9

13

5

10

4

5

3

6

7

12

6

4

10

13

9

1

1

1

1

2

3

1

3

2

1

1

1

2

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Traffic management’ over the last 12 months?


Parking facilities importance

81

2019 Parking importance (index scores)


80

81

81

76

78

76

76

75

71

79

77

70

77

74

68

73

72

70

77

80

75

74

75

73

72

73

70

78

78

71

74

75

72

78

74

70

79

77

74

78

76

73

77

n/a

70

79

77

74

77

74

69

69

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

80

79

79

78

78

76

76

75q

71q

Women

65+

18-34

50-64

Warrnambool

Men

35-49

Regional Centres

State-wide

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Parking facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Parking facilities importance

82

2019 Parking importance (%)


39

42

33

32

32

35

31

26

31

34

43

45

36

35

37

38

35

36

42

43

40

40

40

41

40

35

31

31

46

43

21

18

25

20

22

19

22

26

23

21

21

20

32

16

16

2

4

5

5

3

3

4

6

3

2

1

2

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Parking facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Parking facilities performance

83

2019 Parking performance (index scores)


56

37

51

40

39

39

36

43

41

55

45

52

51

49

47

54

50

47

56

55

54

55

54

53

56

51

56

57

49

53

49

48

47

51

45

47

57

50

n/a

50

50

51

54

48

49

57

54

n/a

56

55

54

62

55

48

56

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

56p

51p

50p

46

45

44

44

43

41

State-wide

18-34

Regional Centres

Men

Warrnambool

Women

35-49

65+

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Parking facilities’ over the last 12 months?



Parking facilities performance

84

2019 Parking performance (%)


8

5

8

13

7

6

9

9

9

7

9

10

7

6

7

20

19

23

29

28

29

31

34

27

20

20

25

24

14

16

31

27

36

31

28

33

35

32

30

34

28

32

25

33

33

27

26

20

16

25

22

16

16

21

28

26

24

24

31

30

14

22

12

11

12

9

7

7

12

10

17

8

19

16

14

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Parking facilities’ over the last 12 months?


Enforcement of local laws importance

85

2019 Law enforcement importance (index scores)


74

71

69

71

72

69

69

68

64

74

71

70

71

72

70

69

68

65

76

70

73

70

71

72

72

72

68

73

71

73

72

73

71

69

71

69

75

70

73

n/a

70

71

70

71

67

78

71

77

n/a

73

73

71

69

67

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72p

71p

70

70p

68

67

66

64

61q

Women

State-wide

65+

Regional Centres

50-64

Warrnambool

35-49

18-34

Men

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Enforcement of local laws’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Enforcement of local laws importance

86

2019 Law enforcement importance (%)


18

26

23

24

21

24

26

27

25

12

24

12

21

17

24

39

36

39

44

48

40

42

38

38

35

43

36

31

48

43

35

29

30

26

24

29

26

26

28

41

29

48

37

27

24

6

7

6

5

5

5

5

6

6

8

3

2

8

6

8

2

2

1

1

1

2

1

3

2

2

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Enforcement of local laws’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Enforcement of local laws performance

87

2019 Law enforcement performance (index scores)


67

64

66

66

66

66

67

64

64

68

64

66

67

66

68

68

65

64

69

64

68

66

64

63

68

64

63

70

65

74

69

67

69

66

68

66

71

67

71

70

n/a

72

71

69

66

74

67

74

71

n/a

74

68

69

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

65

73p

72

72

69

66q

66

66

64q

64q

Women

50-64

18-34

Warrnambool

Regional Centres

35-49

65+

Men

State-wide

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?



Enforcement of local laws performance

88

2019 Law enforcement performance (%)


20

14

13

16

18

15

21

12

16

16

23

27

15

21

16

42

44

47

39

45

49

49

38

40

37

46

38

48

44

38

23

26

26

27

22

24

19

26

25

23

24

18

26

19

31

7

6

5

5

6

3

5

8

7

10

3

8

6

5

6

2

3

2

4

2

1

2

3

3

4

1

2

4

1

2

6

6

7

9

6

8

4

12

9

10

3

8

1

10

6

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?


Family support services importance

89

2019 Family support importance (index scores)


80

78

73

75

75

74

74

76

69

80

76

76

76

76

73

76

77

72

77

76

73

73

73

73

70

70

68

79

85

76

75

78

73

74

73

76

80

76

77

n/a

75

72

73

74

70

78

69

78

n/a

74

73

75

74

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

79p

77

76

75

74

74

73

70

69q

Women

18-34

35-49

Regional Centres

Warrnambool

State-wide

65+

50-64

Men

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Family support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Family support services importance

90

2019 Family support importance (%)


30

35

32

28

33

31

26

29

32

18

40

32

38

24

25

42

37

41

42

46

40

48

42

42

47

37

46

35

40

44

22

21

22

20

18

24

21

21

20

25

19

18

22

26

24

5

5

1

6

2

3

3

4

4

7

2

4

6

6

3

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

2

1

2

2

1

1

3

3

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Family support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Family support services performance

91

2019 Family support performance (index scores)


65

68

70

67

70

66

66

66

63

66

69

65

67

73

66

67

67

67

68

67

64

67

69

68

66

66

68

66

67

68

68

72

68

66

67

64

73

74

73

73

74

72

n/a

68

71

73

73

72

72

74

71

n/a

67

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

67

n/a

73

71

71

70

69

68

68

67q

66

18-34

Women

35-49

Warrnambool

65+

Men

Regional Centres

State-wide

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Family support services’ over the last 12 months?



Family support services performance

92

2019 Family support performance (%)


18

12

12

18

16

16

18

11

15

16

19

23

16

13

17

40

42

40

32

36

46

45

32

35

34

46

42

46

38

35

24

23

23

26

26

16

20

20

22

25

23

20

29

27

22

3

4

5

4

5

3

3

4

6

3

3

2

4

6

2

2

1

3

2

1

1

2

2

1

2

1

3

1

14

17

18

16

15

19

14

31

20

19

8

12

8

15

19

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Family support services’ over the last 12 months?


Elderly support services importance

93

2019 Elderly support importance (index scores)


86

81

80

76

79

79

83

79

73

82

81

80

82

79

74

81

78

76

81

78

78

77

76

75

76

78

71

82

79

80

82

80

81

77

79

78

82

81

n/a

78

79

76

83

79

76

83

81

n/a

82

80

77

81

79

77

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

86p

83

81

81

81

81

80

80

76q

Women

65+

Regional Centres

35-49

Warrnambool

18-34

50-64

State-wide

Men

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Elderly support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Elderly support services importance

94

2019 Elderly support importance (%)


41

42

35

30

36

36

37

38

41

28

54

38

45

43

42

44

39

46

49

50

47

48

44

44

49

39

47

38

40

48

12

16

15

17

13

16

13

15

12

17

7

12

14

14

8

2

2

2

3

1

2

1

2

1

4

2

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Elderly support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Elderly support services performance

95

2019 Elderly support performance (index scores)


74

66

69

70

70

69

68

66

70

76

68

70

71

71

68

68

68

69

70

71

68

68

68

64

68

66

68

73

71

71

71

72

70

69

66

70

75

71

75

75

75

78

70

n/a

74

79

66

73

73

73

74

69

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

74

71

71

71

71

70

68q

67q

67

65+

50-64

Women

Warrnambool

Men

18-34

State-wide

Regional Centres

35-49

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Elderly support services’ over the last 12 months?



Elderly support services performance

96

2019 Elderly support performance (%)


21

18

18

16

19

21

23

14

18

22

19

16

18

21

27

42

42

41

38

43

44

43

33

36

38

46

47

35

46

41

21

18

23

22

18

13

20

19

22

20

22

19

26

19

21

4

6

3

5

4

3

3

5

6

5

3

4

2

6

4

2

2

1

2

2

1

1

2

3

2

2

2

5

1

1

10

14

14

16

14

18

10

28

14

12

8

12

14

7

6

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Elderly support services’ over the last 12 months?


Disadvantaged support services performance

97

2019 Disadvantaged support performance (index scores)


64

65

63

62

60

64

65

61

61

64

65

63

61

59

63

65

63

61

59

63

61

60

59

64

62

59

61

62

64

63

62

61

66

65

61

62

71

68

68

67

62

68

68

n/a

64

70

67

68

68

63

68

68

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

70

67

66

66

66

64

64

63q

62q

18-34

Men

Warrnambool

Women

50-64

35-49

65+

Regional Centres

State-wide

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Disadvantaged support services’ over the last 12 months?



Disadvantaged support services performance

98

2019 Disadvantaged support performance (%)


13

11

10

10

12

13

13

7

11

11

16

17

9

13

13

35

32

34

28

35

36

41

25

30

37

33

34

38

37

32

28

28

25

30

25

20

24

23

27

26

30

29

32

27

24

6

8

8

8

8

6

5

6

7

4

7

2

5

6

10

1

2

3

2

3

1

1

2

2

1

2

1

2

2

17

18

20

21

17

24

16

37

22

21

12

18

14

15

19

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Disadvantaged support services’ over the last 12 months?


Recreational facilities importance

99

2019 Recreational facilities importance (index scores)


77

75

76

74

71

73

74

70

73

72

75

75

74

72

72

73

75

73

79

75

78

75

72

73

73

76

70

74

72

73

75

76

72

72

79

73

73

76

76

74

73

72

n/a

76

72

70

74

72

73

73

72

n/a

75

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

76

75

74

73

72

72

72

71

70

18-34

50-64

Women

Warrnambool

Men

State-wide

Regional Centres

35-49

65+

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Recreational facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Recreational facilities importance

100

2019 Recreational facilities importance (%)


25

27

24

28

28

26

20

23

22

24

25

32

23

27

17

46

45

49

48

45

48

53

46

47

45

46

41

41

49

53

26

24

23

18

25

22

24

26

26

26

26

25

34

23

23

3

3

3

4

2

3

2

4

4

4

2

2

3

1

5

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Recreational facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Recreational facilities performance

101

2019 Recreational facilities performance (index scores)


71

72

70

70

69

69

69

64

67

71

75

69

68

71

70

71

71

72

72

74

70

68

72

69

72

73

72

73

76

69

71

72

70

72

71

72

76

78

n/a

75

74

71

72

70

72

75

78

n/a

73

75

70

73

76

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

74p

71

71

71

70

70

70

69

66

Women

65+

Regional Centres

18-34

Warrnambool

State-wide

35-49

50-64

Men

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Recreational facilities’ over the last 12 months?



Recreational facilities performance

102

2019 Recreational facilities performance (%)


24

22

22

25

27

27

28

23

24

20

29

27

28

21

21

43

45

49

46

45

48

48

44

45

41

45

35

41

49

49

21

21

21

19

19

17

19

21

19

24

18

28

15

20

19

8

8

6

4

6

5

3

6

6

10

6

8

8

8

7

2

3

1

4

2

1

2

2

2

3

1

5

3

1

2

2

1

3

1

1

1

4

3

2

2

2

2

3

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Recreational facilities’ over the last 12 months?


The appearance of public areas importance

103

2019 Public areas importance (index scores)


79

75

76

76

75

78

74

74

73

75

74

73

65

77

76

74

74

71

78

76

77

80

75

77

74

74

76

75

74

76

72

76

80

73

74

77

79

78

77

74

78

80

73

n/a

76

76

75

74

70

75

77

74

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

76

76

74

74

74

73

73

73

72

Women

50-64

Warrnambool

18-34

65+

35-49

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The appearance of public areas’ be as a responsibility for Council?



The appearance of public areas importance

104

2019 Public areas importance (%)


24

34

24

32

31

30

25

24

23

22

26

18

31

29

20

49

41

45

46

44

48

51

47

48

44

54

59

33

46

56

24

20

27

20

22

20

20

25

25

30

20

22

31

23

23

1

4

3

1

2

1

3

3

2

2

1

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The appearance of public areas’ be as a responsibility for Council?


The appearance of public areas performance

105

2019 Public areas performance (index scores)


70

77

75

74

73

73

76

73

71

68

78

74

74

73

74

76

73

71

72

78

75

76

78

76

81

73

71

78

78

77

77

77

75

79

72

72

76

79

78

77

76

78

77

n/a

72

81

83

82

82

81

80

82

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

81

80

80

79

77

77

76

74q

72q

18-34

65+

Women

Warrnambool

Men

50-64

35-49

Regional Centres

State-wide

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The appearance of public areas’ over the last 12 months?



The appearance of public areas performance

106

2019 Public areas performance (%)


37

27

28

33

33

34

41

26

31

35

39

37

38

33

39

46

48

47

47

48

47

47

45

43

46

45

51

38

49

44

13

19

18

14

13

14

9

20

19

13

13

10

17

11

15

3

4

5

4

5

4

2

5

5

5

2

2

5

6

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

2

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The appearance of public areas’ over the last 12 months?


Art centres and libraries importance

107

2019 Art centres and libraries importance (index scores)


70

63

63

64

65

67

63

63

58

66

61

67

64

64

67

62

61

61

68

66

65

65

66

64

64

64

62

65

62

68

65

65

64

66

66

64

71

65

69

67

66

67

n/a

67

62

69

66

63

65

66

68

n/a

64

61

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

66

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70p

68

65

65

65

64

63

62

59q

Women

18-34

35-49

Warrnambool

State-wide

65+

Regional Centres

50-64

Men

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Art centres and libraries’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Art centres and libraries importance

108

2019 Art centres and libraries importance (%)


16

18

12

17

15

17

14

17

15

12

20

23

18

13

11

39

34

41

39

40

40

44

39

37

34

44

44

29

37

46

33

33

35

32

34

35

32

33

34

34

32

22

46

35

32

7

11

10

10

10

6

8

9

10

13

2

8

5

10

6

3

2

1

2

1

1

2

3

5

1

4

4

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

2

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Art centres and libraries’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Art centres and libraries performance

109

2019 Art centres and libraries performance (index scores)


70

73

74

76

72

72

75

71

72

68

73

73

75

72

75

76

71

69

73

74

72

75

74

75

77

75

74

77

78

73

75

76

77

76

74

74

74

78

75

n/a

77

78

81

77

75

78

80

73

n/a

78

79

80

77

77

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

77

75

74

74

73

72

72

71

70

18-34

Women

State-wide

Regional Centres

Warrnambool

65+

35-49

Men

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Art centres and libraries’ over the last 12 months?



Art centres and libraries performance

110

2019 Art centres and libraries performance (%)


24

19

20

26

25

28

34

26

26

20

27

30

21

18

24

45

52

47

47

53

49

46

42

44

41

48

43

47

48

43

22

19

22

19

15

14

13

17

20

26

18

20

26

23

21

4

4

3

4

3

3

3

4

3

4

4

2

2

5

6

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

5

6

3

4

6

3

10

7

8

1

6

3

5

5

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Art centres and libraries’ over the last 12 months?


Community and cultural activities importance

111

2019 Community and cultural activities importance (index scores)


66

69

59

63

62

63

61

56

64

59

66

65

63

62

65

61

60

63

67

68

66

64

62

61

62

59

60

66

65

70

65

63

62

62

65

61

64

68

65

65

n/a

63

62

61

66

64

65

61

62

n/a

63

62

58

59

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

68

67

66

64

62

61

61q

61

61

18-34

Women

35-49

Warrnambool

Regional Centres

65+

State-wide

Men

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community and cultural activities’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Community and cultural activities importance

112

2019 Community and cultural activities importance (%)


13

15

12

13

14

14

9

12

13

10

17

10

20

14

10

41

36

38

41

39

39

42

35

36

41

41

59

31

33

35

36

37

39

36

39

39

38

40

38

35

37

25

40

38

44

7

10

9

8

6

7

7

10

9

9

4

2

7

11

8

2

2

1

2

1

3

2

2

4

1

4

1

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community and cultural activities’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Community and cultural activities performance

113

2019 Community and cultural activities performance (index scores)


68

69

65

66

65

68

69

66

63

63

69

66

68

71

69

69

72

67

70

71

67

71

70

69

69

75

70

69

71

67

70

70

69

69

74

69

79

77

73

76

74

n/a

70

76

74

75

76

72

75

76

n/a

69

76

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

68

n/a

n/a

73

72

70

70

69

69

69

68

67

18-34

Women

50-64

Warrnambool

65+

Regional Centres

State-wide

35-49

Men

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community and cultural activities’ over the last 12 months?



Community and cultural activities performance

114

2019 Community and cultural activities performance (%)


20

16

15

19

20

28

26

17

18

15

24

19

21

20

19

43

43

48

46

45

47

48

42

43

43

43

51

40

40

40

26

28

27

25

25

18

19

25

26

28

24

20

26

31

28

6

7

6

4

5

2

3

6

6

6

5

4

9

4

6

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

5

4

3

4

4

4

4

9

6

6

4

6

2

5

7

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community and cultural activities’ over the last 12 months?


Waste management importance

115

2019 Waste management importance (index scores)


83

78

81

80

83

81

78

82

77

81

79

79

77

81

79

70

80

73

81

75

80

77

78

79

78

78

74

78

80

79

78

80

80

77

77

78

83

82

79

80

81

n/a

76

82

77

80

77

79

78

81

n/a

77

79

77

n/a

n/a

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

83

83

81

81

81

80

80

80

78

Women

35-49

State-wide

Warrnambool

65+

Regional Centres

18-34

50-64

Men

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Waste management’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Waste management importance

116

2019 Waste management importance (%)


41

39

35

33

35

37

32

41

39

38

44

43

51

35

35

42

45

41

46

45

48

52

44

44

39

44

35

31

48

52

16

14

21

18

19

13

14

13

14

21

12

22

15

17

11

1

2

2

2

1

2

1

1

1

2

3

1

1

1

1

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Waste management’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Waste management performance

117

2019 Waste management performance (index scores)


66

69

68

70

70

67

65

66

64

69

73

70

71

69

70

70

63

72

66

76

70

70

69

70

71

69

70

78

75

74

72

71

74

75

70

73

70

78

71

73

n/a

71

72

68

69

75

74

73

71

n/a

73

73

69

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

70

69

68

68

68

66

64

63

18-34

65+

Women

State-wide

Regional Centres

Warrnambool

Men

50-64

35-49

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Waste management’ over the last 12 months?



Waste management performance

118

2019 Waste management performance (%)


23

20

22

22

22

25

22

23

24

20

25

23

22

19

26

42

41

45

47

56

46

53

42

42

41

43

51

37

33

44

21

26

21

21

17

15

20

21

19

24

18

18

20

28

19

10

9

8

4

2

10

3

8

8

11

9

6

14

17

6

4

4

2

4

1

1

1

4

5

3

4

2

7

1

4

1

1

2

1

2

3

1

2

2

1

2

1

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Waste management’ over the last 12 months?


Business and community development and tourism

importance

119

2019 Business/development/tourism importance (index scores)


75

73

76

75

74

74

75

74

66

74

73

71

73

74

76

73

73

67

78

76

77

76

73

74

75

73

67

76

78

77

76

73

74

75

76

67

77

77

73

75

n/a

74

78

73

67

74

73

68

73

n/a

76

74

71

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

66

76

75

75

73

73

71

71

71

65q

Women

35-49

18-34

Warrnambool

Regional Centres

65+

50-64

Men

State-wide

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Business and community development and tourism’ be as a responsibility for Council?




importance

120

2019 Business/development/tourism importance (%)


30

32

28

33

32

29

26

19

28

28

32

34

36

26

23

39

40

41

42

44

43

47

36

41

38

40

36

31

43

46

25

23

28

20

21

24

22

32

25

24

26

24

30

21

25

3

3

3

4

3

2

4

9

4

5

1

2

1

7

3

2

1

1

1

2

2

1

3

2

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Business and community development and tourism’ be as a responsibility for Council?



performance

121

2019 Business/development/tourism performance (index scores)


60

62

63

60

57

60

56

59

60

63

63

68

64

65

65

61

61

61

65

66

64

65

63

66

63

62

60

61

59

57

58

56

56

56

63

61

72

71

71

70

69

68

67

n/a

62

73

72

69

70

67

70

65

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

70

69

68

67

66

65

64

61q

61q

18-34

Women

65+

Warrnambool

Men

35-49

50-64

Regional Centres

State-wide

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Business and community development and tourism’ over the last 12 months?




performance

122

2019 Business/development/tourism performance (%)


17

10

13

16

10

19

20

10

12

17

18

25

13

14

16

40

38

42

38

34

43

45

33

36

37

43

35

47

38

42

28

33

26

29

36

27

24

31

30

28

28

30

27

30

24

6

11

9

8

12

5

6

10

11

7

6

6

5

8

6

2

4

3

4

5

1

3

4

3

1

5

3

1

6

4

7

6

3

6

5

13

7

8

5

4

3

7

11

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Business and community development and tourism’ over the last 12 months?


Council’s general town planning policy importance

123

2019 Town planning importance (index scores)


77

74

73

77

74

72

72

73

70

73

72

72

74

71

71

75

70

64

73

74

73

77

72

72

72

71

69

77

75

72

75

75

73

76

75

72

76

75

72

79

73

n/a

74

71

67

76

74

73

78

72

n/a

71

70

66

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

74

73

73

72

71

71

70

69

65+

Women

State-wide

50-64

Warrnambool

Regional Centres

35-49

Men

18-34

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Council’s general town planning policy’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Council’s general town planning policy importance

124

2019 Town planning importance (%)


23

30

21

21

28

27

24

26

21

19

26

14

25

26

27

43

41

45

47

42

41

45

40

43

46

40

47

35

42

45

27

21

26

24

26

27

24

25

26

27

27

27

33

27

22

3

6

3

3

2

2

4

3

4

3

2

2

4

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

4

2

4

6

3

2

3

4

5

4

4

8

1

2

4

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Council’s general town planning policy’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Council’s general town planning policy performance

125

2019 Town planning performance (index scores)


55

57

53

54

54

54

55

55

48

62

62

57

56

58

53

59

51

54

60

56

58

54

56

52

54

55

52

61

57

59

55

57

54

55

56

52

62

63

62

n/a

61

55

59

57

60

66

62

63

n/a

61

55

59

57

58

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

54

n/a

n/a

n/a

63p

59

58

57

56

55

54

51

48q

18-34

65+

Women

Regional Centres

Warrnambool

State-wide

Men

50-64

35-49

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Council’s general town planning policy’ over the last 12 months?



Council’s general town planning policy performance

126

2019 Town planning performance (%)


9

8

6

8

7

8

10

6

8

9

8

13

3

7

10

29

29

37

28

32

36

35

30

32

28

30

36

26

22

29

30

29

31

34

31

30

33

29

30

32

29

24

32

36

31

13

16

11

10

12

10

10

12

11

13

13

8

16

18

12

7

7

5

6

5

2

2

7

5

10

4

4

12

8

4

12

11

9

15

13

14

10

17

14

8

16

15

11

8

15

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Council’s general town planning policy’ over the last 12 months?


Planning and building permits importance

127

2019 Planning and building permits importance (index scores)


74

75

71

73

71

72

71

73

67

74

76

72

69

69

68

67

69

55

72

74

71

72

69

69

66

69

63

73

75

71

71

70

70

70

74

62

79

75

71

76

n/a

74

72

76

68

76

77

71

72

n/a

71

69

71

62

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

72

71

71

71

70

69

68

66

50-64

65+

State-wide

Women

Regional Centres

Warrnambool

Men

35-49

18-34

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Planning and building permits’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Planning and building permits importance

128

2019 Planning and building permits importance (%)


20

25

19

22

24

29

20

26

23

20

20

14

24

25

19

43

42

39

40

40

40

46

39

41

40

46

41

34

44

52

30

26

31

27

29

27

25

25

27

31

30

37

37

25

22

4

5

7

7

5

2

5

6

5

5

3

6

4

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

4

3

1

2

3

3

4

2

1

2

2

3

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Planning and building permits’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Planning and building permits performance

129

2019 Planning and building permits performance (index scores)


56

56

58

57

62

57

60

57

52

65

64

61

59

64

56

59

60

51

61

59

58

58

57

57

58

55

50

65

58

60

59

58

55

62

57

54

62

62

61

61

61

62

61

n/a

53

62

62

62

65

61

56

61

n/a

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

54

68

67

64

63

61

60

60

58q

52q

18-34

Women

Warrnambool

35-49

65+

50-64

Men

Regional Centres

State-wide

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Planning and building permits’ over the last 12 months?



Planning and building permits performance

130

2019 Planning and building permits performance (%)


12

8

8

6

6

8

8

6

8

13

12

19

11

8

9

32

32

36

29

36

34

38

24

29

29

35

33

35

32

27

28

27

25

25

29

26

24

26

28

31

25

28

25

32

28

5

11

7

8

9

9

10

13

7

9

3

4

9

6

4

3

5

4

5

3

2

3

9

6

5

2

2

3

4

4

19

16

20

26

17

21

16

22

22

14

24

15

16

18

27

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Planning and building permits’ over the last 12 months?


Environmental sustainability importance

131

2019 Environmental sustainability importance (index scores)


73

79

71

73

73

73

77

67

70

74

77

76

73

72

72

72

68

69

75

76

70

71

73

71

70

66

69

76

75

78

73

73

73

71

71

69

74

79

74

73

73

n/a

75

67

68

75

76

71

72

72

n/a

73

68

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

80p

80

76

74

74

72

71q

70q

18-34

Women

35-49

Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

50-64

Men

65+

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Environmental sustainability’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Environmental sustainability importance

132

2019 Environmental sustainability importance (%)


35

29

27

25

27

30

26

33

33

25

43

39

44

29

25

40

40

40

45

47

39

46

39

38

43

37

45

32

42

40

19

24

27

20

20

22

22

21

20

22

16

14

19

20

24

4

6

4

7

5

6

5

5

6

5

3

2

3

5

6

1

1

3

1

1

1

2

2

3

4

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Environmental sustainability’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Environmental sustainability performance

133

2019 Environmental sustainability performance (index scores)


63

63

64

63

64

62

61

61

60

66

60

65

64

61

63

68

66

59

63

62

63

63

65

63

63

63

58

64

65

63

64

67

65

65

65

62

68

67

n/a

64

68

67

67

66

63

66

70

n/a

64

70

68

70

66

66

n/a

n/a

n/a

64

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

66p

63

63

62

61

61

59

59

58

65+

Women

Regional Centres

State-wide

18-34

Warrnambool

35-49

Men

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Environmental sustainability’ over the last 12 months?



Environmental sustainability performance

134

2019 Environmental sustainability performance (%)


12

11

9

14

13

13

16

11

11

11

13

12

11

9

14

37

36

39

35

41

45

42

35

38

34

39

39

33

32

40

31

34

33

32

28

29

30

31

30

32

31

33

35

32

26

11

8

7

8

8

5

4

9

9

14

8

12

14

12

7

3

3

1

4

2

1

2

3

3

4

3

4

3

5

2

5

8

9

7

9

7

6

12

9

6

5

3

9

11

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Environmental sustainability’ over the last 12 months?


Emergency and disaster management importance

135

2019 Emergency and disaster management importance (index scores)


87

82

81

83

83

84

83

81

79

82

80

80

77

79

79

79

79

75

n/a

80

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

81

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

85p

81

81

80

79

79

78

77

72q

Women

Regional Centres

State-wide

35-49

Warrnambool

18-34

65+

50-64

Men

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Emergency and disaster management’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Emergency and disaster management importance

136

2019 Emergency and disaster management importance (%)


42

50

39

47

48

32

50

39

46

44

39

36

36

39

35

34

33

39

39

34

29

40

17

9

16

13

13

26

9

17

16

19

16

4

4

4

3

4

6

1

4

3

5

3

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Emergency and disaster management’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Emergency and disaster management performance

137

2019 Emergency and disaster management performance (index scores)


79

79

73

73

75

71

78

71

71

73

72

76

70

73

70

73

70

73

72

66

73

68

70

69

69

69

67

73

71

71

68

72

68

76

70

72

75

71

75

n/a

74

71

77

71

72

76

72

76

n/a

73

64

75

70

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

78p

75

75

75

74

74

73

72

70q

Women

35-49

65+

Regional Centres

Warrnambool

50-64

18-34

State-wide

Men

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Emergency and disaster management’ over the last 12 months?



Emergency and disaster management performance

138

2019 Emergency and disaster management performance (%)


22

27

19

17

19

19

24

20

26

18

25

21

22

21

25

42

39

41

33

40

38

38

38

41

37

46

48

43

42

33

19

18

20

20

15

14

19

18

16

26

12

22

15

17

21

3

3

1

4

4

3

3

4

4

4

2

4

3

3

1

1

1

2

2

1

2

2

1

1

15

12

18

24

20

26

14

19

13

15

15

6

18

17

20

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Emergency and disaster management’ over the last 12 months?


Planning for population growth in the area importance

139

2019 Population growth importance (index scores)


77

75

77

79

76

75

71

76

76

79

77

76

77

76

75

71

78

75

73

76

76

78

76

76

74

78

75

79

76

75

80

75

76

70

73

74

80

78

75

82

77

n/a

70

79

76

79

78

75

79

77

n/a

74

77

76

n/a

n/a

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

78

78

77

76

76

75

75

74

73

35-49

Women

State-wide

50-64

Warrnambool

Regional Centres

18-34

65+

Men

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Planning for population growth in the area’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Planning for population growth in the area importance

140

2019 Population growth importance (%)


34

32

32

34

33

34

33

38

33

31

37

32

41

35

29

40

41

42

41

38

43

46

35

39

39

41

43

31

40

44

20

23

23

20

24

20

16

19

21

22

19

15

25

23

20

5

3

2

4

3

2

4

5

4

7

2

10

2

2

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Planning for population growth in the area’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Planning for population growth in the area performance

141

2019 Population growth performance (index scores)


66

63

62

63

63

62

62

60

52

73

69

65

67

69

62

62

62

52

71

63

64

66

68

59

65

63

51

70

65

65

64

64

61

59

60

54

71

70

67

66

66

n/a

59

64

54

69

68

66

67

67

n/a

64

64

54

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

52

69

66

65

64

64

62

62

60

52q

18-34

65+

Women

Warrnambool

Men

Regional Centres

50-64

35-49

State-wide

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Planning for population growth in the area’ over the last 12 months?



Planning for population growth in the area performance

142

2019 Population growth performance (%)


15

14

16

17

13

17

18

7

14

16

15

19

9

13

18

39

36

40

35

41

40

39

25

34

40

38

49

36

34

33

24

28

24

26

27

24

25

29

26

23

25

14

30

31

24

8

9

6

8

8

7

9

16

10

10

7

4

11

12

9

4

4

3

3

3

4

2

8

4

5

3

6

5

3

2

10

10

12

12

7

10

8

15

12

7

12

8

9

7

13

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

2014 Warrnambool

2013 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Planning for population growth in the area’ over the last 12 months?


Business and community development importance

143

2019 Business/community development importance (index scores)


70

72

71

71

71

71

70

69

72

68

73

70

71

73

73

68

70

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

74

74

72

72

72

70

69q

68

18-34

Women

35-49

Warrnambool

Regional Centres

65+

Men

State-wide

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Business and community development’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Business and community development importance

144

2019 Business/community development importance (%)


25

25

21

21

25

24

27

24

31

23

23

42

42

45

41

42

40

44

49

35

40

42

29

25

28

31

29

30

28

26

32

27

30

3

5

5

5

3

5

1

2

7

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Business and community development’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Business and community development performance

145

2019 Business/community development performance (index scores)


57

55

55

55

55

60

53

56

55

67

61

62

58

62

60

57

63

61

54

58

62

61

58

60

56

58

59

52

54

57

54

54

60

49

54

54

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

64

63

63

61

61

61

60

59

57

65+

Women

18-34

Regional Centres

Warrnambool

State-wide

50-64

Men

35-49

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Business and community development’ over the last 12 months?



Business and community development performance

146

2019 Business/community development performance (%)


11

5

9

8

7

8

11

11

11

15

6

13

9

37

33

39

32

27

35

37

34

39

37

40

28

40

33

34

35

37

38

31

33

31

35

32

33

40

28

11

15

7

11

14

9

11

13

8

16

8

10

7

3

5

3

4

7

3

3

4

2

8

4

2

6

8

8

9

6

13

6

7

5

5

6

14

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Business and community development’ over the last 12 months?


Tourism development importance

147

2019 Tourism development importance (index scores)


70

74

73

71

71

69

68

70

61

68

72

70

71

70

68

72

75

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

64

n/a

n/a

n/a

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

71

71

69

69

67

67

67

59q

35-49

50-64

Women

Warrnambool

Regional Centres

18-34

Men

65+

State-wide

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Tourism development’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Tourism development importance

148

2019 Tourism development importance (%)


24

26

24

14

24

23

25

22

32

24

18

39

37

40

31

39

40

38

35

33

49

41

29

29

30

36

29

24

33

35

26

18

32

6

6

4

13

6

10

4

6

7

7

6

2

1

1

4

2

3

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Tourism development’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Tourism development performance

149

2019 Tourism development performance (index scores)


66

65

66

64

64

62

61

61

63

68

68

68

65

68

67

69

64

63

72

73

68

71

71

69

74

70

63

74

69

64

67

69

69

72

63

63

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

64

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

72

71

70

70

69

68

68

63q

18-34

Women

65+

Regional Centres

Warrnambool

Men

35-49

50-64

State-wide

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Tourism development’ over the last 12 months?



Tourism development performance

150

2019 Tourism development performance (%)


22

14

18

25

21

13

22

21

24

31

16

22

19

44

40

41

42

38

36

44

42

46

45

47

37

46

20

28

26

22

30

28

20

20

21

12

26

25

21

7

11

6

5

6

10

7

8

6

10

4

8

4

2

2

3

3

1

3

2

3

1

2

3

3

1

4

5

7

3

4

10

4

6

3

4

5

9

2019 Warrnambool

2018 Warrnambool

2017 Warrnambool

2016 Warrnambool

2015 Warrnambool

State-wide

Regional Centres

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Tourism development’ over the last 12 months?


Detailed

demographics

151

Gender and age profile

152

2019 gender


2019 age

Men48%

Women52%

Warrnambool

5%

24%

23%21%

27%

Warrnambool

18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+

Men48%

Women52%

Regional Centres

Men49%

Women51%

State-wide

7%

22%

23%22%

27%

Regional Centres

18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+

8%

18%

23%21%

30%

State-wide

18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+

S3. [Record gender] / S4. To which of the following age groups do you belong?


Please note that for the reason of simplifying reporting, interlocking age and gender reporting has not been included in this report.

Interlocking age and gender analysis is still available in the dashboard and data tables provided alongside this report.

Appendix A:

Index scores,

margins of error

and significant

differences

153

Index Scores

Many questions ask respondents to rate council

performance on a five-point scale, for example, from

‘very good’ to ‘very poor’, with ‘can’t say’ also a

possible response category. To facilitate ease of

reporting and comparison of results over time, starting

from the 2012 survey and measured against the state-

wide result and the council group, an ‘Index Score’ has

been calculated for such measures.

The Index Score is calculated and represented as a

score out of 100 (on a 0 to 100 scale), with ‘can’t say’

responses excluded from the analysis. The ‘%

RESULT’ for each scale category is multiplied by the

‘INDEX FACTOR’. This produces an ‘INDEX VALUE’

for each category, which are then summed to produce

the ‘INDEX SCORE’, equating to ‘60’ in the following

example.

Similarly, an Index Score has been calculated for the

Core question ‘Performance direction in the last 12

months’, based on the following scale for each

performance measure category, with ‘Can’t say’

responses excluded from the calculation.

Appendix A:

Index Scores

SCALE

CATEGORIES% RESULT

INDEX

FACTORINDEX VALUE

Very good 9% 100 9

Good 40% 75 30

Average 37% 50 19

Poor 9% 25 2

Very poor 4% 0 0

Can’t say 1% --INDEX SCORE

60


154

SCALE

CATEGORIES% RESULT

INDEX

FACTORINDEX VALUE

Improved 36% 100 36

Stayed the

same40% 50 20

Deteriorated 23% 0 0

Can’t say 1% --INDEX SCORE

56

Demographic

Actual

survey

sample

size

Weighted

base

Maximum margin

of error at 95%

confidence

interval

Warrnambool City

Council 400 400 +/-4.9

Men192 192 +/-7.1

Women208 208 +/-6.8

18-34 years49 115 +/-14.1

35-49 years99 92 +/-9.9

50-64 years111 85 +/-9.3

65+ years141 107 +/-8.3

The sample size for the 2019 State-wide Local

Government Community Satisfaction Survey for

Warrnambool City Council was n=400. Unless

otherwise noted, this is the total sample base for all

reported charts and tables.

The maximum margin of error on a sample of

approximately n=400 interviews is +/-4.9% at the 95%

confidence level for results around 50%. Margins of

error will be larger for any sub-samples. As an

example, a result of 50% can be read confidently as

falling midway in the range 45.1% - 54.9%.

Maximum margins of error are listed in the table below,

based on a population of 26,900 people aged 18 years

or over for Warrnambool City Council, according to ABS

estimates.

Appendix A:

Margins of error


155

Within tables and index score charts throughout this

report, statistically significant differences at the 95%

confidence level are represented by upward directing

green () and downward directing red arrows ().

Significance when noted indicates a significantly higher

or lower result for the analysis group in comparison to

the ‘Total’ result for the council for that survey question

for that year. Therefore in the example below:

• The state-wide result is significantly higher than

the overall result for the council.

• The result among 50-64 year olds is significantly

lower than for the overall result for the council.

Further, results shown in green and red indicate

significantly higher or lower results than in 2018.

Therefore in the example below:

• The result among 35-49 year olds in the council is

significantly higher than the result achieved among

this group in 2018.

• The result among 18-34 year olds in the council is

significantly lower than the result achieved among

this group in 2018.

Appendix A:

Significant difference reporting notation

Overall Performance – Index Scores

(example extract only)


156

54

57

58

60

67

66

50-64

35-49

Regional Centres

Warrnambool

18-34

State-wide

The test applied to the Indexes was an Independent

Mean Test, as follows:

Z Score = ($1 - $2) / Sqrt (($5^2 / $3) + ($6^2 / $4))

Where:

• $1 = Index Score 1

• $2 = Index Score 2

• $3 = unweighted sample count 1

• $4 = unweighted sample count 2

• $5 = standard deviation 1

• $6 = standard deviation 2

All figures can be sourced from the detailed cross

tabulations.

The test was applied at the 95% confidence interval, so

if the Z Score was greater than +/- 1.954 the scores are

significantly different.

Appendix A:

Index score significant difference calculation


157

Appendix B:

Further project

information

158

Further information about the report and explanations

about the State-wide Local Government Community

Satisfaction Survey can be found in this section

including:

• Survey methodology and sampling

• Analysis and reporting

• Glossary of terms

Detailed survey tabulations

Detailed survey tabulations are available in supplied

Excel file.

Contacts

For further queries about the conduct and reporting of

the 2019 State-wide Local Government Community

Satisfaction Survey, please contact JWS Research on

(03) 8685 8555 or via email:

[email protected]

Appendix B:

Further information

159


mailto:[email protected]

The 2019 results are compared with previous years, as

detailed below:

• 2019, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period

of 1st February – 30th March.










of 31st January – 11th March.




of 18th May – 30th June.

Minimum quotas of gender within age groups were

applied during the fieldwork phase. Post-survey

weighting was then conducted to ensure accurate

representation of the age and gender profile of the

Warrnambool City Council area.

Any variation of +/-1% between individual results and

net scores in this report or the detailed survey

tabulations is due to rounding. In reporting, ‘—’ denotes

not mentioned and ‘0%’ denotes mentioned by less

than 1% of respondents. ‘Net’ scores refer to two or

more response categories being combined into one

category for simplicity of reporting.

This survey was conducted by Computer Assisted

Telephone Interviewing (CATI) as a representative

random probability survey of residents aged 18+ years

in Warrnambool City Council.

Survey sample matched to the demographic profile of

Warrnambool City Council as determined by the most

recent ABS population estimates was purchased from

an accredited supplier of publicly available phone

records, including up to 40% mobile phone numbers to

cater to the diversity of residents within Warrnambool

City Council, particularly younger people.

A total of n=400 completed interviews were achieved in

Warrnambool City Council. Survey fieldwork was

conducted in the period of 1st February – 30th March,

2019.

Appendix B:

Survey methodology and sampling

160


All participating councils are listed in the State-wide

report published on the DELWP website. In 2019, 63 of

the 79 Councils throughout Victoria participated in this

survey. For consistency of analysis and reporting

across all projects, Local Government Victoria has

aligned its presentation of data to use standard council

groupings. Accordingly, the council reports for the

community satisfaction survey provide analysis using

these standard council groupings. Please note that

councils participating across 2012-2019 vary slightly.

Council Groups

Warrnambool City Council is classified as a Regional

Centres council according to the following classification

list:

Metropolitan, Interface, Regional Centres, Large Rural

& Small Rural

Councils participating in the Regional Centres group

are: Greater Bendigo, Greater Geelong, Horsham,

Latrobe, Mildura, Wangaratta, Warrnambool and

Wodonga.

Wherever appropriate, results for Warrnambool City

Council for this 2019 State-wide Local Government

Community Satisfaction Survey have been compared

against other participating councils in the Regional

Centres group and on a state-wide basis. Please note

that council groupings changed for 2015, and as such

comparisons to council group results before that time

can not be made within the reported charts.

Appendix B:

Analysis and reporting


161

2012 survey revision

The survey was revised in 2012. As a result:

• The survey is now conducted as a representative

random probability survey of residents aged 18 years

or over in local councils, whereas previously it was

conducted as a ‘head of household’ survey.

• As part of the change to a representative resident

survey, results are now weighted post survey to the

known population distribution of Warrnambool City

Council according to the most recently available

Australian Bureau of Statistics population estimates,

whereas the results were previously not weighted.

• The service responsibility area performance

measures have changed significantly and the rating

scale used to assess performance has also

changed.

As such, the results of the 2012 State-wide Local

Government Community Satisfaction Survey should be

considered as a benchmark. Please note that

comparisons should not be made with the State-wide

Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey

results from 2011 and prior due to the methodological

and sampling changes. Comparisons in the period

2012-2019 have been made throughout this report as

appropriate.

Appendix B:


162


Core, optional and tailored questions

Over and above necessary geographic and

demographic questions required to ensure sample

representativeness, a base set of questions for the

2019 State-wide Local Government Community

Satisfaction Survey was designated as ‘Core’ and

therefore compulsory inclusions for all participating

Councils.

These core questions comprised:

• Overall performance last 12 months (Overall

performance)

• Lobbying on behalf of community (Advocacy)

• Community consultation and engagement

(Consultation)


(Making community decisions)

• Condition of sealed local roads (Sealed local roads)

• Contact in last 12 months (Contact)

• Rating of contact (Customer service)

• Overall council direction last 12 months (Council

direction)

Reporting of results for these core questions can

always be compared against other participating

councils in the council group and against all

participating councils state-wide. Alternatively, some

questions in the 2019 State-wide Local Government

Community Satisfaction Survey were optional. Councils

also had the ability to ask tailored questions specific

only to their council.

Appendix B:



163

Reporting

Every council that participated in the 2019 State-wide

Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey

receives a customised report. In addition, the state

government is supplied with a state-wide summary

report of the aggregate results of ‘Core’ and ‘Optional’

questions asked across all council areas surveyed.

Tailored questions commissioned by individual councils

are reported only to the commissioning council and not

otherwise shared unless by express written approval of

the commissioning council.

The overall State-wide Local Government Community

Satisfaction Report is available at

http://www.delwp.vic.gov.au/local-

government/strengthening-councils/council-community-

satisfaction-survey.

Appendix B:



164

http://www.delwp.vic.gov.au/local-government/strengthening-councils/council-community-satisfaction-survey

Core questions: Compulsory inclusion questions for all

councils participating in the CSS.

CSS: 2019 Victorian Local Government Community

Satisfaction Survey.

Council group: One of five classified groups,

comprising: metropolitan, interface, regional centres,

large rural and small rural.

Council group average: The average result for all

participating councils in the council group.

Highest / lowest: The result described is the highest or

lowest result across a particular demographic sub-

group e.g. men, for the specific question being

reported. Reference to the result for a demographic

sub-group being the highest or lowest does not imply

that it is significantly higher or lower, unless this is

specifically mentioned.

Index score: A score calculated and represented as a

score out of 100 (on a 0 to 100 scale). This score is

sometimes reported as a figure in brackets next to the

category being described, e.g. men 50+ (60).

Optional questions: Questions which councils had an

option to include or not.

Percentages: Also referred to as ‘detailed results’,

meaning the proportion of responses, expressed as a

percentage.

Sample: The number of completed interviews, e.g. for

a council or within a demographic sub-group.

Significantly higher / lower: The result described is

significantly higher or lower than the comparison result

based on a statistical significance test at the 95%

confidence limit. If the result referenced is statistically

higher or lower then this will be specifically mentioned,

however not all significantly higher or lower results are

referenced in summary reporting.

Statewide average: The average result for all

participating councils in the State.

Tailored questions: Individual questions tailored by

and only reported to the commissioning council.

Weighting: Weighting factors are applied to the sample

for each council based on available age and gender

proportions from ABS census information to ensure

reported results are proportionate to the actual

population of the council, rather than the achieved

survey sample.

Appendix B:

Glossary of terms


165

THERE ARE OVER 6 MILLION PEOPLE IN VICTORIA...

FIND OUT WHAT THEY'RETHINKING.

Contact us

03 8685 8555

John Scales

Managing Director

[email protected]

Katrina Cox

Director of Client Services

[email protected]

Follow us

@JWSResearch

Mark Zuker

Managing Director

[email protected]

warrnambool city council · years of age, social media updates (27%) have supplanted print...

Documents