wingecarribee shire council’s environment levy · environment levy. since the environment...

Proposal to extend Environment Levy _ 9 November 2011 of 14

Proposal to extend Wingecarribee Shire Council’s Environment Levy


Contents

Introduction 3

Council Decisions 4

Amendments to Delivery, Resourcing and Operational Documents 4

Community Input 5

History of the Environment Levy 6

Environment Levy Programs and Initiatives 7

Environment Levy costs and calculations 8

Frequently Asked Questions 9

Want to know more? 14

Other reports, plans and publications A number of document have been prepared for the community to read and view when considering the options available for funding future environmental works. These are on display at Wingecarribee Shire Council offices in Moss Vale and local libraries, as well as online at www.yoursaywingecarribee.com.au


Introduction Council’s Environment Levy (previously known as Wingecarribee Our Future Environment Levy or WOFE) was introduced in 2001 in recognition of the need to address an array of environmental issues which had accumulated in the Shire over a period of rapid population growth spanning the previous two decades. The Environment Levy has been reviewed and approved twice since then by the Minister of Local Government. The local community supported it’s continuation in both instances. The current levy program is in effect until June 2013. The Environment Levy has enabled significant achievements in the areas of biodiversity conservation, maintenance and enhancement of our rivers and wetland health, the long ranging affect of community capacity building and increasingly in the area of environmental resilience and sustainability in the face of increasing threats and risks to our shire. Given the success of the Environment Levy to date, Council has decided that it should seek approval for this levy to exist permanently. Please take some time to review the associated documents on display or available for download which support or explain aspects of this project. You are encouraged to review these before providing comment to Council.

Benefits of Council’s Environment Levy The Levy is aligned to, and provides resourcing to achieve environment related goals in the Wingecarribee 2031+ Community Strategic Plan.

Securing a significant source of funding for the Shire’s environmental outcomes would significantly reduce risk associated with the growing environmental threats of our world today.

A portion of this income would continue to fund support of our volunteer bushcare network as well as continuing education for the general community.

Funds from the Levy support conservation works for landholders on their properties and fund Councils involvement in the Land for Wildlife program.

Increased environmental awareness & education is core to achieving long term environment and sustainability outcomes. The levy funds are used to engage and educate students in the shire via Schools Environment Day. Three other events (World Environment Day, Threatened Species Day and National Tree Day) are also possible because of the levy.

Find out more about the proposal View displays in the Moss Vale Civic Centre or local libraries,

Participate in an online forum and view associated documents at www.yoursaywingecarribee.com.au

Encourage others to have a say Let your friends and neighbours know about this consultation so they can have their say too. We will be randomly selecting residents to participate in telephone and postal surveys in November. The opportunity to complete a survey closes on Friday 9 December 2011 (to allow time to compile and analyse survey responses) however you can continue to comment in other ways until 27 January 2012.


Council Decisions Wingecarribee Shire Council has made the following decisions regarding the future of the Environment Levy. To apply for an extension of the current Environment Levy The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW (“IPART”) is now the approving authority for special variations to rates. IPART provide clear criteria by which applications will be evaluated and all these criteria have to be addressed in order to obtain an approval. Council has commenced addressing these criteria with the assumption that the community would support a permanent levy. However, it is important that Council also provide IPART with clear feedback from the community as to whether it also thinks this is a good idea.

To make it a permanent levy Looking after our environment is a long term commitment. With the increasing pressure to use general rates on an ever‐widening set of services and projects across all the responsibilities of Council, it is usually the more immediate and obvious issues that receive the lion’s share of the general rates allocation. This is why it is important to “ring‐fence” or allocate funds specifically to address environmental issues that have longer term objectives beyond the local government 4 year council term. Having a permanent Environment Levy would allow us to achieve this.

That the application be made in February 2012 During the Wingecarribee 2031+ community consultation process in 2010, our community indicated its strong support for Council’s environmental programs. The resulting Community Strategic Plan clearly identifies work that needs to be done beyond what we are able to provide if the Levy ceases in June 2013. Council is keen to keep the conversation going with the community regarding the environment, and has decided to apply for the permanent levy to cement our commitment and enable long term planning to address known and emerging environmental issues.

Amendments to Delivery, Resourcing and Operational Documents The 2011‐2013 Delivery Program, Resourcing Strategy and 2011/12 Operational Plan (including Revenue Policy) represent Council’s response to implementing our blueprint for the future, the Wingecarribee 2031+ Community Strategic Plan. These documents have been amended to reflect Council’s resolution to support an application for a permanent Environment Levy and will be on public exhibition until Friday 27 January 2012.

http://yoursaywingecarribee.com.au/document/index/8


Community Input Sought Wingecarribee Shire Council is keen to hear the community’s thoughts and ideas about an extension of the environment levy and where to focus our efforts.

Support for a permanent environment levy Council would prefer to have a permanent environment to enable a continued level of service to our community in this area. However, maybe you would prefer to see a variation of this. Council has prepared a number of scenarios so you can compare advantages and disadvantages:

Scenario Description Impact on your rates Impact on your environment

1. No levy. Current Environmental Levy would cease in June 2013

Levy removed from rates Council could: A. continue with some environmental projects at

the expense of reducing other council services, or

B. cease all projects and services funded by the current levy

2. Some Levy. The new levy would be lower than the current environmental levy

Levy would not be removed but would be less

Level of current services and projects would reduce

3. Permanent levy. New levy to begin in July 2012 at rate equivalent to current Levy

Levy continues as it has over last 3 years

Level of current services and projects would continue with scope to achieve further environmental outcomes

4. Continue levy for a time. Current levy would be continued, not permanently, but for a fixed period of time

Levy continues as it has over last 3 years for a set period of time

Level of current services and projects would continue for the set period. There would be some scope to achieve further environmental outcomes

Where to focus our efforts Environmental projects funded out of the Environment Levy are aligned with objectives and targets stated in the Environment Strategy 2010‐2015. In particular, the Environment Levy is used to address the following areas:

Water quality including maintaining healthy natural streams and creeks

Protect Wingecarribee’s distinct and diverse flora and fauna

Community environmental education

Sustainability initiatives supporting the community to reduce resource consumption and waste

Weed management and maintenance of past project sites With a restricted amount of funding available to address known and emerging environmental issues, Council needs to prioritise what projects should be addressed first. It is important that when we set these priorities that we take into account what the community would like us to focus on.

Let us know what you think

The best way for you to let us know how you feel, is to put your comments in writing. This can be done with a letter, email, fax, by participating in an online forum or completing a survey. You may be randomly selected to participate in a telephone survey, conducted by an independent research company on Council’s behalf but if not please grab a copy of the survey from Council’s customer service team or local libraries. It can also be completed online at www.yoursaywingecarribee.com.au

http://yoursaywingecarribee.com.au/document/show/105


History of the Environment Levy In June 2000 the NSW Minister for Local Government approved a request by Council for a Special Variation to its General Income for environmental projects (Wingecarribee Our Future Environment ‐ WOFE). This special rate was approved for three years and again for a further five years in 2003. In July 2008 the Minister again approved the extension of this rate for a further five years to end in June 2013. Accordingly, Council has continued to levy a special rate on all rateable land in the Shire. The focus of projects funded by the Environment Levy has evolved throughout its existence to ensure that the program remains relevant.

2000 to 2007 2008 to 2010 2010 ‐ Present Bushland Management

Biodiversity

Water, Rivers & Creeks

Biodiversity Conservation

Community Capacity Building

River Health & Wetlands

Urban Environmental Sustainability

Weed Management and Maintenance of Past Project Sites


Enhance Capacity and Commitment of the Broader Community

River Health and Wetland

Sustainability Initiatives and Environmental Resilience

In 2010, the Wingecarribee Environment Strategy 2010‐2015 was developed to bring environmental efforts in alignment with long term strategic directions that were informed by the Wingecarribee 2031+ Community Strategic Plan. The programs are now reviewed on an annual basis to make sure lessons are learned and the strategy is managed in an adaptive rather than a prescriptive manner which ultimately ensures continuous improvement. Council believes that this approach will extract the best value from the funds we have in the Environment Levy. Since the Environment Levy’s inception in 2000, Council’s Environment & Sustainability Committee has focussed on advising Council regarding projects and activities that are funded by Council’s Environment Levy. In early 2011, the Environment & Sustainability Committee increased its scope so that it includes monitoring and review of progress against the overarching Environment Strategy. The current members of the Environment & Sustainability Committee include:

Councillors Larry Whipper (Chair), Jim Clark and David Stranger

Community members Jan Hainke, Jane Lemann, Maree Byrne and Leon Hall

Representatives from the HNCMA, NPWS, SCA, Department of Industry & Investment



Environment Levy Programs & Initiatives The Environment Levy is used to fund specific expenditure on the following environmental projects as stated in Council’s Environment Strategy and Operation Plan: Weed Management & Maintenance of Past Project Sites

Manage invasive species in past project sites

Weed eradication


Increasing native vegetation extent through revegetation

Conserve significant native vegetation on private lands

Protect and restore natural ecosystems

Prepare and implement effective management plans to minimise the impact of activities that damage native habitats and assist in the protection of threatened species

Enhance the capacity and commitment of the broader community

Educate and train to build the capacity of the community to act on environmental issues

Develop and support community volunteer based environmental program

Communication pathways developed to ensure effective communication with community to support environmental levy achievements.

River Health and Wetland

Develop riparian management strategy

Support clean and healthy urban streams and creeks

Revegetation and rehabilitation of Council managed riparian lands.

Sustainability Initiatives

Resource efficiency review and actions for Civic Centre

Develop Shire strategy for environmental threats and opportunities e.g. climate change, price on carbon, mining, population pressure.

Develop baseline for Shire footprint and ongoing monitoring Natural Asset Management Within the Community Strategic Plan Wingecarribee 2031 Our Future Our Choice, a significant level of interest and aspirations were associated with the protection and enhancement of our distinct southern highlands natural environment. In order to deliver on the community's vision, it is recognised that Council must have long term planning in place associated with these natural assets.

Council's current Asset Management Plan is a traditional plan which addresses issues and planning associated with Council's built assets and does not currently include natural assets within its scope of asset classes.

The Environment Levy provides the base source of funding for our natural asset management activities. To continue work in Natural Asset Management it is imperative that, Council continue to secure funding from other sources rather than just general rates. Level of Service During the Wingecarribee 2031+ community consultation process, our community indicated its strong support for Council to continue, if not increase, the level of service that has been provided over the last 10 years with respect to natural resource management for our shire.

The level of service that has been provided to our community over the last 10 years has only been able to be achieved through the existence of an Environment Levy.


Environment Levy costs and calculations The amount a ratepayer is charged for the Environment Levy appears on your rates notice. The local government Act 1993 requires Council to categorise every parcel of rateable land into one of four main categories (Farmland, Mining, Residential or Business). Your rates notice will identify the rating category that has been assigned to your property. The table below presents the annual and weekly average Environment Levy charges estimated for 2012/13 financial year for each category.

Rating Category AVERAGE ENVIRONMENT LEVY CHARGES 2012‐13

Annual Weekly

Residential $40.40 $0.78

Business $53.50 $1.03

Farmland $105.47 $2.03

Mining $111.36 $2.14

There are two calculations that determine the Levy for each property. Firstly, there is a fixed base amount*. Secondly, there is a variable component, which can be found by multiplying the rate in the dollar** by your land valuation (which appears in the top right hand corner of your rate notice). If you add the variable component amount of this calculation to the base amount* it will equal your Environment Levy charge.

EXAMPLE: For an average residential ratepayer in 2012/13 with an unimproved property valuation of $273,000, the calculation would be: Variable component ($273,000 X 0.00006520**) = $17.80 Base Amount* = $22.60

Environment Levy = $40.40

*Base Rate: $22.60 **Rate in the Dollar: 0.00006520 (this amount will change each year as a result of any rate pegging increase or change to your property’s land value as determined by the Valuer Generals Department.)

The Levy is subject to normal rate pegging. Rate Pegging is the allowable rate increase approved by IPART each year for all Councils, to make allowances for the rising cost of living. For more detailed information on the financial implications of the Environment Levy under different options please refer to the fact sheet ‘Impacts on Ratepayers’.



Frequently Asked Questions What is the Environment Levy? Levies are a common way for Councils to obtain additional funding for specific projects. Environment Levies have been used by many Councils over the years including Blue Mountains, Ku‐ring‐gai, Hornsby, Penrith and Pittwater. The current Wingecarribee Shire Council (WSC) Environment Levy was approved by the Minister for Local Government and continues until 2013. It was granted to WSC Council to enable us to deal with crucial environmental issues within the Shire including:

river health

restoration of wetlands, riparian zones and bushland reserves

biodiversity conservation,

conservation of endangered species and ecological communities

urban environmental sustainability. The funds were also approved to enable Council to maximize its opportunity to gain external grant funding from agencies such as the Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Authority, Environmental Trust and the Federal Governments “Caring for Our Country” program. Grant funding applications usually require the applicant to contribute an equal amount of money (matching funding) to the project and the additional funds provided by the Environment Levy allow us to do this.

How long has the Levy been in place? The Environment Levy has been in place since 1 July 2000. It has been renewed three times since, as a result of Council’s successful applications to the Department of Local Government. The current Levy began in 2008 and expires in 2013.

Why is Council applying for the Levy to be made permanent? Council has already had the levy renewed three times, with the support of the community, and now wishes to reapply for the Levy to be permanent. The Community Strategic plan, Wingecarribee 2031, provided Council with feedback from the community regarding their wishes in relation to the environmental works they want Council to conduct. A permanent Levy will allow Council to continue with, and maintain, a range of ongoing projects aimed at improving the condition of our natural environment. Council will be able to better plan future projects knowing it will have the capacity to carry them out to their full term. Having ongoing funding allocated to environmental works will also mean Council will be better placed to apply for grant funding available from the various external agencies. The Levy renewal process is extremely time consuming and involves many Council employees. Approval of a permanent Environment Levy will reduce the time spent by Council having to reapply every three years, allowing staff to focus on the actual work the Environment Levy is funding.


What does the Environment Levy fund? The Environment Levy has funded much needed work in the shire to improve and maintain river health, rehabilitate riverside corridors, remove environmental weeds, regenerate & restore degraded land, and conserve and enhance natural biodiversity. Achievements of the Levy to date include:

Over 1.25 Million dollars leveraged in grant funding.

45 sites throughout the Shire currently managed by the Bushcare team. Many of these sites were identified by the community as needing active remediation and/or management.

17 active landcare/ bushcare groups made up of 174 volunteers are supervised by Councils bushcare team.

Supporting federal, state and local environmental initiatives including the Great Eastern Ranges biodiversity corridor (BIOLINK), Land for Wildlife program, Indian Minor Project, National Tree Day.

Over 35,000 native plants planted and 280 ha of bushland regenerated. 14.5km of river‐side vegetation regenerated or improved to manage erosion, remove weeds and enhance water quality.

Recruitment of 50 private properties into Land for Wildlife which amounts to 356 ha of private land being managed for Wildlife Conservation.

Development of the community nursery in conjunction with the Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Authority (HNCMA) and Sydney Catchment Authority (SCA) to grow and supply provenance plants (local genetic stock) for planting at bushcare sites, local schools and for community events.

Numerous community activities including Schools Environment Day, World Wetlands Day, World Environment Day. Supporting local schools in environmental activities.

Supporting local sustainability initiatives including Southern Highlands Harvest, Fridge buyback, Penrose Sustainability Festival.

For details on current and future planned programs of work refer to Wingecarribee Environment Strategy 2010‐2015 and Future Works brochure.

How is the Community involved in the choice of projects funded by the Environment Levy? An outstanding feature of the Environment Levy is that many community groups have worked in tandem with Council on numerous projects from commencement to completion. The community has had significant involvement in the planning process for Environment Levy funded projects which includes the appointment of community representatives to the Environment and Sustainability committee, chaired by Councillor Larry Whipper. The committee oversees the Environment Levy program. Council has actively encouraged the community to embrace the philosophy and implementation of the Environment levy by making information readily available and by promoting the Environment Levy using local media. (Link to media stories) The community highlighted the high value they place on our natural environment during the consultation process for Wingecarribee 2031 Community Strategic Plan. This document, endorsed by Council in December 2010, represents the visions, aspirations, goals, priorities and challenges for our community into the future. The document was developed using a variety of processes which encouraged a range of community members to express their opinions. Feedback obtained during this community consultation process has been used to develop the Wingecarribee Environment Strategy 2010‐2015 and is being used to help shape future environmental projects.




How much money did the Council receive from the Levy last year? In the 2010‐11 financial year the Environment Levy raised $ 891,091.05 and spent $746,509 on Environmental Projects throughout the year. The majority of unspent budget resulted from Councils staff restructure, which left some positions vacant for a portion of the year. Wages that were budgeted for were unspent. The flow‐on effect from positions vacant resulted in some project delays. All carried over funds remain in the Environment Levy program and have already been allocated to works to be conducted in the next few years including the implementation of weed management plans and work on roadside reserves.

Allocation of Environment Levy Revenue 2008 ‐ 2013

Biodiversity Conservation, 25%

Enhance Capacity and Commitment of

the Broader Community, 18%

River Health and Wetland, 14%

Sustainability Initiatives and Environmental

Resilience, 27%

Management & Overheads, 17%

How many people are employed by the Environment Levy Funds? The following positions are funded by the current Environment Levy to carry out environmental projects and on‐ground works for the shire. These positions amount to around 68% of the 2011‐12 Levy budget with the remainder spent on contractors, consultants and materials.

Natural Resource Projects Coordinator

Natural Resource Project Officer‐ Community Support

Natural Resource Project Officer‐ events and education

Sustainability Project Officer

2 X Bushcare Team leaders (one position currently being filled)

2 X Bush regenerators

The Environment Levy also partly funds the Parks and Open Space Coordinators position and Bushland Project Officer position.

Why can’t the funds from the IRS (Infrastructure Recovery Strategy) funds be used for environmental works? Funds created under a special rate variation must be used solely for the defined purpose it was approved for. The current IRS fund was first created in 2003/4 for the maintenance and renewal of Council’s existing infrastructure, and therefore cannot be used to pay for any projects other than these.


Why can’t Council fund environmental work out of our normal rates? The Environment Levy is used to carry out environmental works and projects that go beyond council’s base responsibilities and funding capabilities. Councils rates are used to fund a vast array of services for the community including road maintenance, kerb and guttering, footpaths, drainage, bridges, parks, gardens, sporting fields, swimming pools, public health administration, bushfire prevention, libraries, community facilities, noxious weed eradication, services to the aged and youth, bus shelters, traffic management, tourism and much more. Our shire is unique in that we have extensive natural assets to manage including around 130km of waterways and approx 2,500 hectares of Council owned/managed passive open space (includes natural areas, parks, gardens and ancillary open space) which equates to 54 hectares per 1000 people in the shire.

Council also manages approximately 260 hectares of Council owned/managed active open space which equates to approximately 5.6 hectares per 1000 people. These figures are well above the 1.62 hectares of passive open space and the 1.21 hectares of active open space per 1000 people, historically used as standards for planning. The large expanses of open space contribute to the shires unique character, having a series of villages connected by rural lands and bushland. While Council does fund many core environmental responsibilities from its general rates, it needs the extra funds generated by the Environment Levy if it is to continue to protect the shire’s rich biodiversity, manage and adapt to current and future environmental challenges, plus maintain all the other Council services

.

Is Council planning to introduce increases in rates and charges for other reasons over the next few years? In NSW any rate increases are regulated by IPART (Independent Pricing & Regulatory Tribunal). Every year rates across NSW are subject to ‘rate pegging’. Rate pegging is the allowable rate increase approved by IPART, to make allowances for the rising cost of living. The rate pegged increase for 2011/2012 was 2.8%. It has not been more than 3.6 % over the last 10 years. A council may increase their income by more than the rate peg percentage by applying for a ‘special variation’. The Environment Levy is one such special variation. These can only occur after approval by IPART. While there are no other set increases in rates and charges planned in the immediate year, Council does foreshadow two areas where increases could be possible. Council is considering asking the public if they want a new domestic green waste collection service. This proposed service would be an additional charge for those residents that already have kerbside waste pickup services.

Any new charge from the normal rate pegging requires a thorough and open community consultation process. Therefore, you will be consulted and informed well in advance of any green waste service charges being implemented. It is also probable that there will be an increase in sewer charges for those properties currently paying a sewer access charge. This increase is due to significant capital costs incurred by Council in recent years upgrading facilities such as the Bowral and Bundanoon sewerage treatment plants and the future costs associated with the construction of a new sewerage scheme at Robertson. To give an indication of the impact or the above scenarios, Council has modeled the likely future total rates and charges. In this modeling Council has assumed an increase in Sewer charges of $60 in 2012/13 & $60 in 2013/14. Again for modeling purposes Council has also made an assumption that a domestic green waste service charge of around $125 may be introduced in 2012/13. These figures and timeframes for implementation are estimates only. For a summary of this modeling refer to fact sheet ‘Impacts on Ratepayers’.



What is IPART? IPART is the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal and was established by the NSW Government in 1992. It is an independent body that oversees regulation of the water, gas, electricity and public transport industries in New South Wales. IPART took over the role of determining Local Government special variation applications in

2011. For more information about IPART see www.ipart.nsw.gov.au/welcome

I am a rural Landholder, what does the Levy do for me? Current Levy funds are spent maintaining biodiversity and healthy ecosystems in the shire. A healthy, balanced ecosystem can contribute to the productivity of farms and agricultural ecosystems keeping pest species in check, preventing erosion, maintaining healthy soils and clean waterways. While Council’s general funds pay for the control of noxious weeds, Environment Levy funds are used to control the spread of environmental weeds, therefore reducing weed seed spread onto private lands. Weeds impact on rural lands by reducing agricultural productivity, contaminating produce and poisoning livestock. The Levy currently funds a vegetation conservation incentive program. Rural landholders may be eligible for financial incentives to carry out rehabilitation works that will conserve endangered native vegetation, protect waterways and prevent erosion. Council staff, funded through the Environment Levy are available to assess properties for their eligibility. They are also available to provide technical advice to landholders on natural resource initiatives and issues, plus provide access to information and workshops run by council and other agencies including the Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Authority.

I live in a village/town, what does the Levy do for me? The Environment Levy programs have been designed to ensure the shire’s bushland areas are well maintained. The enhanced quality of our bushland areas also provides habitat for our native birds and animals and makes this shire a good place to live and visit. The healthy environment in our shire encourages tourism and passive recreation, resulting in broader economic benefits. The Environment Levy funds enable Council to hold educational events for our school children such as the Schools Environment Day, as well as educational events for the general population (i.e., Threatened Species Day, World Wetlands Day). It also supports activities organized by other agencies and local educational events including the Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Authority and the Penrose Sustainability Festival.

What happens if Councils application of the Environment Levy is unsuccessful? The Independent Pricing & Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) assessed numerous applications from other Councils last year. Not all Councils were successful with their applications. Some were given much less than they requested ‐ levies for shorter periods of time, a lower rate, or no levy at all. Council has a number of options it would consider if its application was unsuccessful or only partially renewed including:

another application the following year

significant reduction in services which would be funded from the rates collected

reduction in other services and facilities to fund environmental programs

complete cessation of environmental works


If I support the Environment Levy, how can I be sure the funds raised will be spent on environmental projects? At the ordinary meeting of Wingecarribee Shire Council, held 8 November 2011, it was resolved “THAT Council will ensure that any rates collected as a result of the Environment Levy Special Rate Variation will be accounted for and reported separately in its annual report and that key indicators and progress against targets will be reported in the State of Environment Report for as long as the rate variation exists.” IPART’s conditions for approval of the special variation will include the requirement for Council to adequately report on the program of expenditure proposed as well as the outcomes achieved as a result of the Levy.

What is Council doing to cut costs and save money? Within the last 2 years Council has implemented a variety of programs to reduce our spending and add value to the services that are paid for by your rates and charges. These include:

Approximately $320K pa reduction in labour and wage costs

Organisational restructure has resulted in a flatter structure which has provided more efficient and flexible work practices as well as more responsive services to our community.

Investment in technological improvements to reduce operating expenses

Creation of internal legal function to reduce Council's overall legal costs

Rationalisation of underperforming assets e.g. decommissioning of the Vertical Compost Unit and sale of non‐productive Council land.

Training and development program of staff to increase individual and team productivity

Is Council required to do environmental work? From a statutory point of view, the charter of a local Council in NSW includes the requirement for a Council to “properly manage, develop, protect, restore, enhance and conserve the environment of the area for which it is responsible in a manner which is consistent with and promotes the principles of Ecological Sustainable Development principles”. With this fairly high level definition, there is scope for a council to decide to commit to varying levels of service of natural asset management. The level of service that has been provided to our community over the last 10 years has only been able to be achieved through the existence of an Environment Levy.

Want to know more? Additional information on the project can be found on Council’s website www.yoursaywingecarribee.com.au

We want the community to know all about the project. If this document hasn’t answered your questions, then please contact the Project Team on (02) 4868 0888. We can then add it to the fact sheet so that everyone can see the answer.

Web: www.yoursaywingecarribee.com.au (participate in online discussion forums and polls)

www.wsc.nsw.gov.au

Email: [email protected]

Post: Wingecarribee Shire Council, PO Box 141, MOSS VALE NSW 2577

Phone: (02) 4868 0888

Fax: (02) 4869 1203

Environment Levy Projects During the consultation process for the Wingecarribee 2031+ Community Strategic Plan, our community indicated its strong support for Council to continue, if not increase, the level of service that has been provided over the last 10 years with respect to natural resource management for our shire. From a statutory point of view, the charter of a local Council in NSW includes the requirement for a Council to “properly manage, develop, protect, restore, enhance and conserve the environment of the area for which it is responsible in a manner which is consistent with and promotes the principles of Ecological Sustainable Development principles”. With this fairly high level definition, there is scope for a council to decide to commit to varying levels of service of natural asset management. The level of service that has been provided to our community over the last 10 years has only been able to be achieved through the existence of an Environment Levy. Protection of the environment is a long term commitment. With the increasing pressure to use general rates on an ever‐widening set of services and projects across all the responsibilities of Council, it is usually the more immediate and obvious issues that receive the lion’s share of the general rates allocation. This is why it is important to allocate funds specifically to address environmental issues that have longer term objectives beyond the local government 4 year council term. Having a permanent Environment Levy would allow us to achieve this. All environmental projects currently managed by Wingecarribee Shire Council are aligned with objectives and targets stated in the Environment Strategy 2010‐2015. The scope of this strategy can be summarised in the following statements:

1. Maintain, rehabilitate and enhance the natural environment of Wingecarribee Shire.

2. Develop Council systems that reduce risk to the environment

3. Ensure The Wingecarribee Shire and its residents have environmental resilience into the future The majority of projects associated with (1) and (3) are funded by the Environment Levy. If Council is unable to renew the Environment Levy in 2013, it is likely that most, if not all, the projects associated with these focus areas will cease. A project list comprising both existing and proposed Environment Levy projects is found on following pages. The projects highlighted in green are proposed future projects that will only commence if we have a continuance in the Environment Levy up to and beyond 2015. The projects that are in white are projects that are underway or have a plan to be completed prior to June 2015 (but could be cut short if Environment Levy ceases in 2013). Prioritisation of projects will be influenced by emerging issues and community feedback via the online survey at www.yoursaywingecarribee.com.au. Council is interested in what you think about the proposed projects. The proposed projects (highlighted in green on the project list) were drafted after consideration of community feedback during the development of the Wingecarribee 2031+ Community Strategic Plan as well as data collected as part of the preparation of the 2011 State of Environment Report. Council is taking the opportunity to update its Environment Strategy in order to have clear direction and planned works set in preparation for a permanent Environment Levy. While the Levy may be permanent, it is intended that the Environment Strategy will undergo a significant review and update every 4‐5 years to keep it relevant.

Environment Levy Projects

Ref. Objective Intent Project Name Project Description

Weed Maintenance Regular maintenance of programs are carried out on project sites. Approaches include land management to encourage weed resilience.

Weed Management Plans Development and implementation of weed management plans for environmentally significant Council managed lands

Roadside Reserve Roadside verges are prone to outbreaks of new weeds. Focus on these areas to act quickly and contain new incursions as they occur. Includes development of effective integrated processes to manage these sites.

Invaders Program to target major sources of environmental weed introduction into Southern Highlands, e.g. discourage local nurseries selling invasive species

Community Nursery Expand/support infrastructure for native plant community nursery

Tree Planting Planning and carrying out program of native vegetation planting which includes community tree planting days.

No Net Loss Development of an offest policy and carrying out planting and other activities that support this policy

2.2 Conserve significant native vegetation

The intent of this objective is to support action that will encourage landholders to conserve native vegetation in the Wingecarribee Shire LGA. This recognises that in the most highly cleared landscapes much of the remaining native vegetation is on private land. Ultimately the management of vegetation and biodiversity can only be achieved if all stakeholders become involved and this is one way to engage collaboratively with the largest landholder in the Wingecarribee Shire, the private landholder.

Vegetation Conservation Encourage more private vegetation conservation agreements through incentive programs. Includes supporting BioLink initiative.

Map new EECs Mapping of new EECsGreen Web Strategy Map green web - assist in planning decisions, revegetation

activities, private conservationGreen Web Action Engage stakeholders to preserve identified and prioritised reserves

and corridors, implement focussed planting areas and biodiversity offsets. Targeted activities to list and preserve threatened species and communities.

EEC Maintenance Establish maintenance management programs for endangered plant communities managed by Council

Mt Gibraltar EEC Plan Specialised management plan for EEC at this locationGibbergunyah Reserve EEC Plan

Specialised management plan for EEC at this location

Hammock Hill EEC Plan Specialised management plan for EEC at this locationVertebrate Pest Management

Vertebrate Pest Management Plans developed for each Council managed reserve, targetting pest animals: Fox/Rabbit/Cat/Dog in order of priority.

Indian Minor Facilitate community members to set backyard traps for pest birds

Weed Management & Maintenance of Past Project Sites (planned 18% of Environment Levy)

Environment Strategy Objectives Projects funded from Environment Levy

Biodiversity Conservation (planned 20% of Environment Levy)

The general principles of biodiversity management is to direct investment towards preventing further degradation of good condition lands before investing in the more intervention-based rehabilitation of degraded lands. This biodiversity target will ensure that the biodiversity in lands managed by Wingecarribee Shire Council are protected and enhanced in the longer term.

Manage invasive species into past project sites

Weed control is not an effective investment unless it has longer-term results. The most fundamental stage of any restoration project is the ongoing maintenance. This requires an ongoing investment program to ensure levels of infestation are controlled and managed appropriately to reduce ongoing infestation and sustain a net reduction in weed spread over areas previously controlled. The implementation of this target will lead to more effective investments and shifts the focus of action to the symptoms. While ongoing investment is required it should be recognised that investment will reduce over time and lead to eradication or native ecological resilience.

The intent of this target is to improve and direct Councils management of key threatening process and the recovery of threatened species, populations and ecological communities with in the Shire. Wingecarribee Shire Council is responsible for the management of various threatened species, populations and ecological communities within the Wingecarribee Shire LGA. Management documents need to be developed specifically for Councils management of these significant ecological species and systems. This objective links the management of these ecological species and systems with objectives and targets identified by the DECCW and HNCMA strategies and catchment blue prints.

Weed eradication1.2

2.1

2.3

1.1

2.4

The intent of this target is to reduce the existing spread of area specific weeds identified in Weed Management Plans by 25% by 2013 and to act quickly to deal with emergency mass or new incursions of weeds. This target requires the development of an effective integrated process to manage new and emerging outbreaks and strategically manage established weed infestations.

Protect and restore natural ecosystems

Increase native vegetation extent through revegetation

The intent of this objective is to improve native vegetation extent by providing improved connectivity and buffering priority vegetation from detrimental impacts. Wingecarribee Shire Council is responsible for the management of various community services and infrastructures within the Wingecarribee Shire LGA. Unfortunately at times during routine management Council is required to remove vegetation. This vegetation can be significant or quite common, however Council recognises it has a responsibility to facilitate a “no net loss” of vegetation policy outcome.

Prepare and implement effective management plans to minimise the impact of activities that damage native habitats and assist in the protection of threatened species

Page 1 of 4



Community Education Educate and engage the local community on the impacts they personally impose on the environment. Encourage and engage the community to take action to help protect the environment. Includes development of educational tools, fact sheets and website information.

Awareness Campaigns Facilitate environmental awareness campaigns and events that have alignment with global, national and state initiatives. This includes World Envrionment Day, Schools Environment Day, Threatened Species Day, Tree Planting Day.

Commercial Practices Review

Supporting local commercial/industrial businesses to ensure that they understand and act on their environmental responsibilities.

3.2 Develop and support community volunteer based environmental program

Positive behaviour change often occurs gradually through a concerted effort over a long period of time and includes the need for ongoing development of knowledge and skills as information and technology improves. These mechanisms empower and motivate the community to not only understand NRM processes, but also to take positive action that supports improvements to the Wingecarribee's natural environment.

Landcare and Bushcare Training and education of community based groups working in partnership with WSC contribute thousands of hours to the restoration of the local environment.

Environment Levy Promotion

Development of promotional tools and materials as well as ongoing advertising of events, marking of progress and successes.

Environment Forums Continued community forums face-to-face as well as online to "Keep the conversation going"

Urban Sustainability Partner Program

Targeted program to promote and embed sustainable land use practices in existing residential properties. Engage local businesses & events with potential waste issues to support env. or cleanup projects (e.g. Clean Up Australia Day). Promotion of Federal and State Govt. programs e.g. Low Income Energy Efficiency program (up to 2016).

Rural Partner Program Targeted program to promote and embed sustainable land use practices in existing agricultural and rural living properties.Sustainable land management, and biodiversity conservation in rural areas. Seminars for Landholders- Biobanking for landholders. Incentives for landowners protecting natural ecosystems. Support federal & state biodiversity initiatives (e.g. BioLink, Land for Wildlife). Sustainable fire wood programs (full life cycle) to reduce rogue tree choppers. Towards carbon neutrality - carbon farming opportunities for private landholders.

Love the Bushwalk Targeted improvements to bushwalking facilities & trails (focus on Mt Alexandra, Gibbergunyah, Berrima, etc)

Understanding Places Interpretive signs for natural spacesBiodiversity Under Threat Signage for endangered communities across shire

Enhance the Capacity and Commitment of the Broader Community (planned 20% of Environment Levy)

Many environmental initiatives that are applicable to our community have their beginnings in other organisations and levels of government. Quite often these initiatives need to be localised and focussed for our community to maximise the benefits of the program. This includes programs such as Bio Banking, HNCMA activities, Caring for our Country, Land for Wildlife, Clean Up Australia Day, Low Income Energy Efficiency Program, Greening Australia, etc. Priority will be given to activities that are aligned with targets in the WSC Environment Strategy.

Upgrade community owned bushland and natural space amenities

Council reserves are used regularly for bushwalking by both residents and visitors to the area. Amenities and particularly signage associated with these trails as well as interpretive signage and endangered communities information require significant upgrading to support an increase in usage and therefore an increase in awareness and "pride of place" will benefit these natural areas. It is also important to further prevent these areas being affected by destructive activities e.g. trailbikes.

Educate and train, to build the Capacity of the Community to act on environmental issues

For the community to act on environmental change it needs to have access to the information and knowledge and to be introduced to new ideas and techniques. Education and training will encourage the community to be proactive about improving the natural environment

Facilitate, ensure alignment and localise State and Fed. Govt's as well as NGO's environmental education/incentive projects.

3.5

Communication pathways developed to ensure effective communication with community to support environment levy achievements

The environment is an asset of common interest in the community. If we cannot connect with the community, this common bond is significantly reduced. Harnessing this common interest to work together and exchange information will strengthen the ability of Council to work together in a partnership with the community.

3.1

3.4

3.3

Page 2 of 4



Riparian Management Strategy

Defines priority areas for on ground investment in riparian health

Council Guidelines for Riparian Management

Develop riparian management guidelines for Council operations.

Management Plan Whites Creek

Plan to restore ecosystem function of the urban sections of Whites Creek.

Management Plan Mittagong Rivulet

Plan to restore ecosystem function of the urban sections of Mittagong Rivulet.

Management Plan Upper Nattai

Plan to restore ecosystem function of the urban sections of Upper Nattai River.

Sediment Focus Sediment control programs along urban creek areas with a focus on areas becoming detrimental to riparian condition

Stormwater Quality Improvement

Establish SQIDs in key stormwater channels (231 stormwater catchments have no SQID's)

Water Runoff Development and implement strategy/plan to deal with Diffuse water pollution.

River & Stream Health Periodic assessment of riparian zones assessed for excessive erosion and general stream health and collation of information

Wetlands Strategy Revise Wetlands StrategyRiparian Management Plan Wingecarribee River

Council managed riparian area of Wingecarribee River

Riparian Management Plan Iron Mines Creek

Council managed riparian area of Iron Mines Creek

Riparian Management Plan Gibbergunyah Creek

Council managed riparian area of Gibbergunyah Creek

Riparian Management Plan Chinamans Creek

Council managed riparian area of Chinamans Creek

Riparian Works Develop and carry out implementation plan to prioritise works for Council riparian land and program of continuous improvement.

Develop riparian managementRiparian health throughout the Wingecarribee is fundamental to the social and economic sustainability of community and industry. Riparian areas in the Wingecarribee provide for the environment, drinking water, recreation, agriculture and tourism. These activities place significant pressure on riparian condition, without appropriate management, the riparian condition could be compromised. Providing for the sound management of this essential natural resource will ensure long term health of rivers and wetlands in the Wingecarribee.

River Health and Wetland (planned 10% of Environment Levy)4.1

Most urban creek areas have a prolonged history of degradation, impacting on their environmental qualities and aesthetic values. For many years streams and creeks have endured the impacts of urban and industrial development, resulting in the decline of the health and quality of riparian systems. Urban creeks and streams are the main environmental interface between the broader community and the living environment. Managing reed growth and rubbish in these areas will have a twofold benefit, maintaining visual amenity and enhancing the quality of the waterway.

Revegetation and rehabilitation of Council managed riparian lands

4.3

Support clean and healthy urban streams and creeks

A long history of agriculture, urbanisation and industrial development has lead to the decline of riparian areas in the Wingecarribee Shire. Many riparian areas, predominantly in reserves, now demonstrate the symptoms of past neglect. These areas typically have a limited capacity to recover through natural regeneration processes. Revegetation is the level of intervention required to combat such decline in the riparian health. Restoration and revegetation will provide protection to the riparian areas, increase ecosystem health, develop habitat corridors and provide for stream bank stabilisation.

4.2

Page 3 of 4



Baseline Establish clear baseline data for local flora, fauna, water, land for ongoing reporting data.

Data Collection Set up data collection tools and processes required to enable reporting of progress of Environment Strategy and Environment Levy funds.

Initiate formalised Natural Asset Management system

Natural Asset ManagemenEvaluate systems to manage natural assets that are currently managed by Council.

MERI Framework Adopt and implement the National NRM MERI framework for managing natural assets. Will assist in setting targets and standard approaches to measurement.

Green Business Focus on helping local businesses to improve waste reduction and recycling habits. E.g. Support business initiatives that reduce plastic bag use

New Resources Sponsor recycled products/art initiativesBack Yard Composting Subsidise compost bins & worm farmsGarage Sale Trail Support organised Garage Sale Trails

Facility CAP Project manage carbon action plans for top 10 Council facilities for GHG emissions

Technology Review Conduct regular reviews of energy efficiency technology and legislated requirements (+educate stakeholders)

Wingecarribee Smart Meter

Monitor and feedback whole of community energy use (e.g. meter in Bowral and website)

Southern Highlands Backyard Sustainability

Facilitate "grow your own food" movement. May include community garden in village, workshops on backyard sustainability, swap network, seed savers, Council demonstration garden

Sustainability Hub Support and help to facilitate sustainability Hub with CANWin.

Management & Overheads (planned 7% of Environment Levy)

Sustainability Initiatives (planned 15% of Environment Levy)

Natural Asset Management (planned 10% of Environment Levy)5.1 Monitor , Review and Report Monitoring is the key to knowing you are winning. Implementing a monitoring, review and

reporting process as an integral component of all NRM activities will provide this level of information. As the environment is a living thing, evolving over time; there is constant change in condition, extent and diversity. Data collated from the MR&R program will guide future works and provide Council the information required for future investment and self promotion of the environmental levy.

6.2

5.2

Positive actions to encourage our community to live within it means in terms of its impact on local and imported resources.

Continuous improvement in reduce, re-use, recycle waste targets via education and incentive programs

Volume of waste generated by our community is a major impact on our natural environment. The habits that have been formed in our society are hard to break and concentrated education and incentive programs to alternative behaviour are required to ensure that residents and businesses are conscious of what they consume and mindful to separate out items that can be recycled. Education focus areas include contamination reduction, waste minimisation and waste avoidance.

An overarching approach needs to be developed and agreed with respect to long term management of Council-managed natural assets. Initial steps include: determine to what extent traditional asset management systems can be applied; clear definition of the extent, purpose and "life" of each of the natural asset classes; determination of the "value" of each asset; calculation of sustainability index (SI) for each asset; refinement of strategic objectives for natural asset management to drive future investment and priorities.

Actively reduce our usage of fossil fuels and our carbon emmissions within Wingecarribee Shire

While much of this objective is being addressed by initiatives at a State/National and global level, it is necessary to act locally by identifying the main contributing factors to carbon emissions within our local area and proceeding with action plans that include retrofitting, making use of renewable energy technology and creating new habits that overall reduce our community's fossil fuel usage.

6.1

Encourage and facilitate reduction of Wingecarribee's Ecological Footprint with specific focus on food production and resource consumption

6.3

Page 4 of 4

Council documents amended to include application for Environment Levy

The Delivery Program 2011/2013 has been amended to show that Council intends to apply for a special rate variation to enable the delivery of environmental projects to meet W2031+ goals through continuation of the environment levy. The Operational Plan 2011/2012 has been amended to show an additional action identifying special rate variation project with the relevant measures and targets. The Resourcing Strategy, specifically the Long Term Financial Plan has been amended to include scenarios showing financial projections:

1. The current Environment Levy ends in June 2013 and services are discontinued

2. Full approval of a special variation is granted

3. Projects proceed without special variation.

(It should be noted that the associated community consultation with the exhibition of these documents will include further options than these financial projections, however these would fall within the extremes of projections).

Document Page Detail 62 W2031+ Goal 4.1, Strategy 4.1.1

Program/Project: ‘Apply for a special rate variation to enable delivery of environment projects to meet W2031+ goals through continuation of the Environment Levy relevant to W2031+ strategies.’

64 W2031+ Goal 4.1, Strategy 4.1.2 Program/Project: As above





72 W2031+ Goal 4.3, Strategy 4.3.3 Program/Project: As above W2031+ Goal 4.3, Strategy 4.3.4 Program/Project: As above


Delivery Program


62 Action: ‘Engage community to determine level of support for Environment Levy.’ Program/Project: Action: ‘Submit application for special rate variation.’






72 W2031+ Goal 4.3, Strategy 4.3.3 Program/Project: As above W2031+ Goal 4.3, Strategy 4.3.4 Program/Project: As above


Operational Plan


37 Natural Asset Management information

52 Scenario 1 – Continuation of Environment Levy income and expenditure

66 Scenario 2 – No Environment Levy income or expenditure from 1 July 2013

Resourcing Strategy

80 Scenario 3 – No Environment Levy income from 1 July 2013, but continuation of expenditure

Which type of rates do you pay? Take a look at the columns below.

How do the options affect you? Which option would you prefer?

RESIDENTIAL RATES BUSINESS RATES FARMLAND RATES

Option 1: No levy Under this option the 3.6% Environment Levy would cease in June 2013 and would be removed from your rates. Under this option Council could either: (A) Consider what level of environmental services it could continue to afford at the expense of reducing other council services. For example, some facilities may be closed, opening hours for some services could be reduced and/or less maintenance undertaken OR (B) The Environment Levy and all environmental projects and activities funded by it would cease.



Option 2: Some levy Under this option, from July 2013 a new 1.86% Environment Levy is charged. The new levy would be 45% lower than the current environment levy and may mean community environmental events, revegetation projects, weed management, private landholder programs or sustainability initiatives would have to be reduced under this option. Under this option a reduced level of environmental services would mean the average RESIDENTIAL rate payer would be charged $22.26 /year or 43 cents per week instead of 78 cents per week.

Option 2: Some levy Under this option, from July 2013 a new 0.93% Environment Levy is charged. The new levy would be 46.5% lower than the current environment levy and may mean community environmental events, revegetation projects, weed management, private landholder programs or sustainability initiatives would have to be reduced under this option. Under this option a reduced level of environmental services would mean the average BUSINESS rate payer would be charged $29.48 /year or 57 cents per week instead of $1.06 per week.

Option 2: Some levy Under this option, from July 2013 a new 2.16% Environment Levy is charged. The new levy would be 46.5% lower than the current environment levy and may mean community environmental events, revegetation projects, weed management, private landholder programs or sustainability initiatives would have to be reduced under this option. Under this option a reduced level of environmental services would mean the average FARMLAND rate payer would be charged $58.10 /year or $1.12 per week instead of $2.09 per week.

Option 3: Permanent levy Under this option, Council permanently collects the 3.6% Environment Levy, effectively becoming part of the annual rates charge but itemised separately on your bill. For example from July 2012 the levy would cost the average RESIDENTIAL rate payer $40.40/year which amounts to about 78 cents per week. Long term environmental works and initiatives could be planned and carried out, ensuring the shire maintains, protects and enhances its distinct and diverse natural environment. Levy projects and spending would be documented each year in Council’s annual report.

Option 3: Permanent levy Under this option, Council permanently collects the 1.73% Environment Levy, effectively becoming part of the annual rates charge but itemised separately on your bill. For example from July 2012 the levy would cost the average BUSINESS rate payer $53.50/year which amounts to about $1.03 per week. Long term environmental works and initiatives could be planned and carried out, ensuring the shire maintains, protects and enhances its distinct and diverse natural environment. Levy projects and spending would be documented each year in Council’s annual report.

Option 3: Permanent levy Under this option, Council permanently collects the 3.96% Environment Levy, effectively becoming part of the annual rates charge but itemised separately on your bill. For example from July 2012 the levy would cost the average FARMLAND rate payer $105.47/year which amounts to about $2.03 per week. Long term environmental works and initiatives could be planned and carried out, ensuring the shire maintains, protects and enhances its distinct and diverse natural environment. Levy projects and spending would be documented each year in Council’s annual report.

Option 4: Continue Levy For A Time Under this option, the 3.6% Environment Levy would be continued, not permanently, but for a fixed period of time. As in option 3, from July 2012 the levy would cost the average RESIDENTIAL rate payer $40.40/year which amounts to about 78 cents per week. For a fixed time environmental works and initiatives could be planned and carried out, ensuring the shire maintains, protects and enhances its distinct and diverse natural environment. Levy related projects and spending on works would be documented each year in Council’s annual report.

Option 4: Continue Levy For A Time Under this option, the 1.73% Environment Levy would be continued, not permanently, but for a fixed period of time. As in option 3, from July 2012 the levy would cost the average BUSINESS rate payer $53.50/year which amounts to about $1.03 cents per week. For a fixed time environmental works and initiatives could be planned and carried out, ensuring the shire maintains, protects and enhances its distinct and diverse natural environment. Levy related projects and spending on works would be documented each year in Council’s annual report.

Option 4: Continue Levy For A Time Under this option, the 3.96% Environment Levy would be continued, not permanently, but for a fixed period of time. As in option 3, from July 2012 the levy would cost the average FARMLAND rate payer $105.47/year which amounts to about $2.03 cents per week. For a fixed time environmental works and initiatives could be planned and carried out, ensuring the shire maintains, protects and enhances its distinct and diverse natural environment. Levy related projects and spending on works would be documented each year in Council’s annual report.

ENVIRONMENT LEVY OPTIONS

How will you be impacted by the proposal to continue

the Environment Levy?

The current Environmental Levy was approved for five years and is due to expire in June 2013. Council is proposing to apply to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) early next year to seek approval for a continuation of the levy.

Council has developed a number of options concerning the future funding of environmental works, and is now seeking community comment for inclusion in its application to IPART.

This document outlines the financial and service level impacts of the four options. Please carefully consider the options and then have your say. You can become involved in this important community decision in a number of ways: Log onto www.yoursaywingecarribee.com.au, View displays in the Moss Vale Civic Centre or local libraries, Read the associated documentation and consider how Council’s recently amended Delivery Program,

Resourcing Strategy and Operational Plan are affected, Complete a survey or participate in an online forum (we will be randomly selecting residents to

participate in telephone and postal surveys as well) Email directly to [email protected], or Write to PO Box 141, Moss Vale 2577 And remember to let your friends and neighbours know about this consultation so they can have their say too. The opportunity to complete a survey closes on Friday 9 December 2011 (to allow time to compile and analyse survey responses) however you can continue to comment in other ways until 27 January 2012. For more information contact the Project Team on 4868 0888


IMPACT ON THE RESIDENTIAL RATE PAYER

On 28 September 2011 Wingecarribee Council confirmed its commitment to apply to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal for a permanent Environment Levy. Council’s preference is for a permanent levy, however, there are other options possible as described below. Read about the financial and service level impacts of the four options carefully then have your say www.yoursaywingecarribee.com.au

Four (4) Options

NO LEVY‐. Under this option the Environment Levy would cease in June 2013 and would be removed from your rates.

SOME LEVY‐ Under this option, from July 2013 a reduced Environment Levy is charged. The new levy may mean community environmental events, revegetation, weed management, private landholder programs or sustainability initiatives would be reduced.

PERMANENT LEVY‐ Under this option, Council permanently collects the Environment Levy, effectively becoming part of the annual rates charge but itemised separately on your bill.

CONTINUING LEVY FOR A FIXED PERIOD. Under this option, the Environment Levy would be continued for a fixed time only. The cost to the ratepayer would be the same as for the permanent Levy however the charges would cease after a period of time as determined by community feedback and IPART.

Financial Impact In the 2012/2013 financial year, the average Environment Levy charge for a RESIDENTIAL ratepayer is

$0.78 per week ($40.40 pa)

The Affect of Rate Pegging Council rates and charges increase each year due to rate pegging. Table 1 shows how rate pegging may affect the Environment Levy charge (shown on a weekly basis) over a 5 year period if it was continued.

Table 1: Weekly Environment Levy for RESIDENTIAL ratepayers

Financial Scenarios of Options The following tables show the average costs to a RESIDENTIAL rate payer under the four Levy Options and include the affect of rate pegging over a period of 5 years. Table 2 shows the annual costs associated with the Environment Levy, whereas Table 3 shows the weekly total rates and charges, including the Environment Levy, a RESIDENTIAL rate payer would be paying during the same period.

Table 2: Environment Levy Annual Comparison

Table 3: Total Rates & Charges Weekly Comparison

While Table 2 and Table 3 assume a five year period for the FIXED PERIOD scenario, IPART may determine any number of years as the fixed period. The impact on the rate payer after this time would be the same as for the NO LEVY scenario. The amounts shown in Table 3 include all rates and charges that would normally paid by a RESIDENTIAL ratepayer. This means rates, domestic waste collection charge, environment levy, stormwater levy, and water and sewer charges. For the purpose of modelling the total rates and charges, Council has assumed an increase in sewer charges of $60 in 2012/13 & $60 in 2013/14. Council has also made an assumption that a domestic green waste service charge of $124.80 will be introduced in 2012/13. This would only occur after the community is consulted. These figures and timeframe for implementation are an estimate only. For further information on future charges please refer to the ‘Frequently Asked Questions’.

Service Level Impact

The following presents the service implications for each of the four options.

SERVICE IMPLICATIONS FOR OPTIONS‐ RESIDENTIAL RATE PAYER

NO LEVY The Environment Levy will cease in July 2013 with all the services it funds discontinuing. Under this option Council would have two choices

(A) Reduce service levels of other council services to in order to fund any projects or activities that were funded by the Environment Levy. For example, some facilities may be closed; opening hours for some services could be reduced and/or less maintenance undertaken.

OR

(B) Cease all Environment Levy funded projects and activities. This would mean Council would not have the capacity to supervise and train Landcare and Bushcare volunteers or look after local bushland areas. Bushland reserves commonly used for passive recreation such as bushwalking are likely to deteriorate in quality as environmental weeds gradually spread. Council would have a decreased capacity to obtain grant funding available from state and federal government agencies. Since the Levy started we have obtained over 1 million dollars from agencies to conduct environmental projects. Other activities that would cease under this option include:

Council’s Land for Wildlife program

Vegetation conservation program

Community education events, e.g. Schools Environment Day,

Community nursery

Visit www.yoursaywingecarribee.com.au to see a full list of projects funded by the Levy.

SOME LEVY : The current levy ceases in 2012/13 Council continues with a new Environment Levy that would be lower than the current levy to fund a reduced environmental program.

Reduce service levels or number of Environment Levy funded projects and activities. Council may consult the community to reprioritise the environmental services it delivers. It is important that the community provides council with feedback regarding the priority you place on various environmental services. To have your say visit www.yoursaywingecarribee.com.au and complete the self completion survey or collect a survey from Councils Civic Centre or your local library.

PERMANENT LEVY: Council continues with a permanent Environment Levy from 2012/13 at a rate equivalent to the existing levy. Continue service levels and planned Environment Levy funded projects and activities as outlined in Councils Environment Strategy 2010‐2015. Council will develop new environmental programs in line with community feedback supplied in the development of Wingecarribee 2031‐ Community strategic plan. Council can continue to act on current environmental issues in the shire and will have the ability to plan for, and respond to, new environmental threats into the future.

CONTINUING LEVY FOR A FIXED TIME: Council continues with an Environment Levy from 2012/13 at a rate equivalent to the existing levy for a fixed time

Continue service levels and planned Environment Levy funded projects and activities as outlined in Councils Environment Strategy 2010‐2015. Council will implement new environmental programs in‐line with the community feedback supplied during the development of Wingecarribee 2031 ‐ Community strategic plan and during this community consultation process. Project selection under this scenario will also be dependant on the period of time the levy is renewed for. Council’s ability to plan long term projects is limited under this option.


IMPACT ON THE FARMLAND RATE PAYER


Four (4) Options





Financial Impact

In the 2012/2013 financial year, the average Environment Levy charge for a FARMLAND ratepayer is

$2.03 per week ($105.47 pa)

The Affect of Rate Pegging Council rates and charges increase each year due to rate pegging. Table 1 shows how rate pegging may affect the Environment Levy charge (shown on a weekly basis) over a 5 year period if it was continued.

Table 1: Weekly Environment Levy for FARMLAND ratepayers

Financial Scenarios of Options The following tables show the average costs to a FARMLAND rate payer under the four Levy Options and include the affect of rate pegging over a period of 5 years. Table 2 shows the annual costs associated with the Environment Levy, whereas Table 3 shows the weekly total rates and charges, including the Environment Levy, a FARMLAND rate payer would be paying during the same period.



While Table 2 and Table 3 assume a five year period for the FIXED PERIOD scenario, IPART may determine any number of years as the fixed period. The impact on the rate payer after this time would be the same as for the NO LEVY scenario. The amounts shown in Table 3 include all rates and charges that would normally paid by a FARMLAND ratepayer. This includes rates and Environment Levy only. Domestic waste, water and sewer, and stormwater levy are not included as the average FARMLAND property does not receive these services.



SERVICE IMPLICATIONS FOR OPTIONS‐ FARMLAND RATE PAYER NO LEVY The Environment Levy will cease in July 2013 with all the services it funds discontinuing. Under this option Council would have two choices

(A) Reduce service levels of other council services to in order to fund any projects or activities that were funded by the Environment Levy. For example, some facilities may be closed; opening hours for some services could be reduced and/or less maintenance undertaken.

OR

(B) Cease all Environment Levy funded projects and activities. This would mean Council would not have the capacity to supervise and train Landcare and Bushcare volunteers or look after local bushland areas. In this situation there would be a decrease in the quality of our local environment and ecosystems. Council would not have the capacity to control environmental weeds in Council owned and managed lands and roadsides. This would lead to the spread of environmental weeds. Council would not have the capacity to continue with riverside vegetation projects which could eventually mean a decrease in water quality. Council’s vegetation conservation incentive and Land for Wildlife programs would cease, as well as Councils ability to provide technical advice to local landholders on environmental issues. Council would have a decreased capacity to obtain grant funding available from state and federal government agencies. Since the Levy started we have obtained over 1 million dollars from agencies to conduct environmental projects. Other activities that would cease under this option include:


Community nursery

Visit www.yoursaywingecarribee.com.au to see a full list of projects funded by the Levy. SOME LEVY : The current levy ceases in 2012/13 Council continues with a new Environment Levy that would be lower than the current levy to fund a reduced environmental program.



CONTINUING LEVY FOR A FIXED TIME: Council continues with an Environment Levy from 2012/13 at a rate equivalent to the existing levy for a fixed time



IMPACT ON THE BUSINESS RATE PAYER


Four (4) Options





Financial Impact

In the 2012/2013 financial year, the average Environment Levy charge for a BUSINESS ratepayer is

$1.03 per week ($53.50 pa)

The Affect of Rate Pegging

Council rates and charges increase each year due to rate pegging. Table 1 shows how rate pegging may affect the Environment Levy charge (shown on a weekly basis) over a 5 year period if it was continued.

Table 1: Weekly Environment Levy for BUSINESS ratepayers

Financial Scenarios of Options The following tables show the average costs to a BUSINESS rate payer under the four Levy Options and include the affect of rate pegging over a period of 5 years. Table 2 shows the annual costs associated with the Environment Levy, whereas Table 3 shows the weekly total rates and charges, including the Environment Levy, a BUSINESS rate payer would be paying during the same period.



While Table 2 and Table 3 assume a five year period for the FIXED PERIOD scenario, IPART may determine any number of years as the fixed period. The impact on the rate payer after this time would be the same as for the NO LEVY scenario. The amounts shown in Table 3 include all rates and charges that would normally paid by a BUSINESS ratepayer. This means rates, environment levy, stormwater levy, and water and sewer charges. For the purpose of modelling the total rates and charges, Council has assumed an increase in sewer charges of $60 in 2012/13 & $60 in 2013/14. These figures and timeframe for implementation are an estimate only. For further information on future charges please refer to Frequently Asked Questions.



SERVICE IMPLICATIONS FOR OPTIONS‐ BUSINESS RATE PAYER NO LEVY The Environment Levy will cease in July 2013 with all the services it funds discontinuing. Under this option Council would have two choices

(C) Reduce service levels of other council services to in order to fund any projects or activities that were funded by the Environment Levy. For example, some facilities may be closed; opening hours for some services could be reduced and/or less maintenance undertaken.

OR

(D) Cease all Environment Levy funded projects and activities. This would mean Council would not have the capacity to supervise and train Landcare and Bushcare volunteers or look after local bushland areas. Council would not have the capacity to control environmental weeds in Council owned and managed lands and roadsides. This would lead to the spread of environmental weeds which may impact on tourism as our bushland areas would gradually become degraded and new environmental threats would not be addressed. Council would not have the capacity to continue with riverside vegetation projects which could eventually mean a decrease in water quality. Council would have a decreased capacity to obtain grant funding available from state and federal government agencies. Since the Levy started we have obtained over 1 million dollars from agencies to conduct environmental projects. Other activities that would cease under this option include:

Council’s Land for Wildlife program

Vegetation conservation program


Community nursery

Visit www.yoursaywingecarribee.com.au to see a full list of projects funded by the Levy. SOME LEVY : The current levy ceases in 2012/13. Council continues with a new Environment Levy that would be lower than the current levy to fund a reduced environmental program.



CONTINUING LEVY FOR A FIXED TIME: Council continues with an Environment Levy from 2012/13 at a rate equivalent to the existing levy for a fixed time.


ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENT

LEVY PROGRAM LEVY PROGRAM LEVY PROGRAM LEVY PROGRAM

ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL

REPORTS REPORTS REPORTS REPORTS

ANNUAL REPORT 2000 / 2001

The Wingecarribee Our Future Environment special rate, formally approved by the

Minister of Local Government, was implemented from 1 July 2000 to raise $500,000

per year over three years to be spent on specific environmental projects. Expenditure

focuses on three target areas: our biodiversity, our waters and our native bushland. A

committee was set up early in the program to oversee its progress and to consider

proposed works and expenditure.

Actual expenditure in each program area during 2000/01 and the budget estimate for

2001/02 to 2004/05 are outlined below.

Total expenditure during 2000/01 was $149,500, resulting in a rollover of

approximately $350,000. All expenditure during 2000/01 was in the three target areas

of the program. The primary expenditure items included the field survey and

vegetation mapping component of the biodiversity strategy, and on-ground bushland

regeneration works. On-ground works are in three major areas: rehabilitation of

riparian zones, management of wildlife habitat and corridors and environmental weed

control. Major on-ground projects during 2000/01 include environmental weed control

at Mt Gibraltar and Mt Alexandra Bushland Reserves and riparian zone rehabilitation at

Mittagong Rivulet andWhite Creek. In addition, a two-person bush regeneration team

was formed to carry out and maintain on-ground works.

Almost $200,000 of the rollover from 2000/01 can be attributed to the delay in

recruiting new employees for the Environmental Review Program, Sediment Control

Program and On-Ground Works Maintenance. A further $48,000 was due to unspent

funds committed to onground works and $35,000 due to a delay in setting up the

Water Quality Monitoring Program. There will be a rollover of about $169,000 beyond

the third year of the program, mainly because the Environmental Review Officer and

the Bush Regenerator positions continue for three years from the date of officer

appointment.

The budget estimate for 2001/02 is $759,500. Total on-ground works expenditure will

be $370,000.

WINGECARRIBEE OUR FUTURE ENVIRONMENT WINGECARRIBEE OUR FUTURE ENVIRONMENT WINGECARRIBEE OUR FUTURE ENVIRONMENT WINGECARRIBEE OUR FUTURE ENVIRONMENT

(ENVIRONMENTAL LEVY) PROGRAM (ENVIRONMENTAL LEVY) PROGRAM (ENVIRONMENTAL LEVY) PROGRAM (ENVIRONMENTAL LEVY) PROGRAM


The Wingecarribee Our Future Environment special rate, formally approved by the

Minister of Local Government, was implemented from 1 July 2000 to raise $500,000

per year over three years to be spent on specific environmental projects. Expenditure

focuses on three target areas: native bushland regeneration, improving our waterways

and development of a biodiversity strategy. A committee was set up early in the

program to oversee its progress and to consider proposed works and expenditure.

Actual expenditure in each program area during 2001/02 and the budget estimate for

2002/03 to 2004/05 are outlined below.

Total expenditure during 2001/02 was $572,367. All expenditure during 2001/02 was

in the three target areas of the program. The primary expenditure items included the

restoration of community owned bushlands and waterways, roadside weed

management and water quality improvement, including the development of a shire

wide water quality monitoring program. Major on-ground projects during 2001/02

included environmental weed control at Berrima Common, the targeted weed removal

program of wild pussy willow and riparian zone rehabilitation at Mittagong and Whites

Creek. Additionally, a two-person bush regeneration team undertook regeneration

work in 15 bushland reserves.

There will be a rollover beyond the third year of the program, mainly because the

Environmental Review Officer and the Bush Regenerator positions continue for three

years from the date of officer appointment.

The budget estimate for 2002/03 is $609,666




The Wingecarribee Our Future Environment special rate, formally approved by

the Minister of Local Government, was implemented from 1 July 2000 to raise

$500,000 per year over three years to be spent on specific environmental

projects. Expenditure focused on three target areas: native bushland

regeneration, improving our waterways and development of a biodiversity

strategy. A committee was set up early in the program to oversee its progress

and to consider proposed works and expenditure.

Actual expenditure during 2002/03 and the budget estimate for the new levy

program for2003/04 and 2004/05 outlined below.

Total expenditure during 2002/03 was $473,154. The primary expenditure

items included the restoration of community owned bushlands and waterways,

roadside weed management and water quality improvement, including the

implementation of a shire wide water quality monitoring program. Major on-

ground projects during 2002/03 included environmental weed control at Iron

Mines Creek, riparian zone rehabilitation at Gibbergunyah and Whites Creek

and wildlife corridor restoration at Goanna Falls Reserve at Berrima.

Additionally, a three-person bush regeneration team undertook regeneration

work in 15 bushland reserves.

Significant commitments continue to be made to improving environmental

management by local industry as a result of the pro-active Environmental

Review and Education Program.

The sediment and erosion control program was successfully completed with

approximately 300 audits undertaken of construction sites to ensure

compliance with Councils erosion control policy.

The budget estimate for 2003/04 under the 2003/2008 WOFE Program is

$529,200

A successful application was made to the Minister for Local Government to

extend the Environment Levy for a further five (5) years.



2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

Actual Estimate Estimate

Annual Totals 473,154 529,200 630,200


The Wingecarribee Our Future Environment special rate, formally approved by

the Minister of Local Government in June 2003, was implemented from 1 July

2003 to raise $3.02 million over five years to be spent on specific

environmental programs. Expenditure has focused on three broad themes:

improving natural area land management, improving our rivers and creeks and

protecting the biodiversity values of our natural resources.

Total expenditure during 2002/03 was $573,952.

Major projects undertaken during 2003/04 included: the design and

construction of a gross pollutant trap in Moss Vale, creek bank restoration at

Gibbergunyah Creek, Mittagong Creek, Whites Creek, Iron Mines Creek,

Wingecarribee River and the creekline below Lake Alexandra; bushland

rehabilitation at Penrose, Mt Gibraltar, Robertson, Hammock Hill, and Welby;

roadside weed control at Avoca, Cunningham Park, Yarrunga, Wingello,

Bundanoon, Exeter, Werai and Robertson; bush regeneration work in 15

bushland reserves by Council’s bush regeneration team, rabbit and fox baiting

in Berrima, Mansfield Reserve and Gibbergunyah Reserves; and the joint

funding of the Regional Illegal Dumping (RID) program to operate across the

Shire.

The environmental levy was also able to provide financial and technical

support to Bushcare and Landcare Groups at Moss Vale, Bowral,

Gibbergunyah, Mansfield Reserve, Bundanoon, Mt Gibraltar, Berrima and

Burrawang.

Significant commitments continue to be made to improving environmental


Review and Education Program and the assistance provided to new businesses

in the planning and ongoing management of their operations to optimise

environmental performance. The production and distribution of the “Solutions

To Pollution” newsletter for businesses in the Shire assists them to comply

with the requirements of NSW pollution control legislation.

The sediment and erosion control program continued with approximately 229

site inspections undertaken of construction sites to reduce the amount of soil

that is washed into our creeks and rivers.

The budget for 2004/05 under the WOFE Program is $630,200.




The Wingecarribee Our Future Environment programme, formally

approved by the Minister of Local Government in June 2003, continued in

the 2004/05 year. Expenditure has focused on three broad themes:

improving natural area land management, improving our rivers and creeks

and protecting the biodiversity values of the Shire’s natural resources.


The environmental levy programme provided on ground and technical

support to Bushcare and Landcare Groups at Cosgrove Park and Whites

Creek in Moss Vale, Mittagong Creek in Bowral, Gibbergunyah Creek in

Mittagong, Mansfield and Hammock Hill Reserves in East Bowral, Garland

Rd Reserve in Bundanoon, Mt Gibraltar Reserve, along Caalong Creek in

Robertson, along Wingecarribee River in Berrima and at Burrawang

cemetery and nearby road reserves.

Major natural resource management projects undertaken during 2004/05

included: creek bank restoration at Gibbergunyah Creek, Mittagong Creek,

Whites Creek, Iron Mines Creek, Chinamans Creek, Caalang Creek at

Robertson, along the Wingecarribee River in the Burradoo area and the

creekline below Lake Alexandra; bushland rehabilitation at Penrose, Mt

Gibraltar, Hammock Hill, and Welby; roadside weed control at Avoca,

Yarrunga, Mittagong and Robertson as well as a spraying program on one

third of the Shires roads; bush regeneration work in Council’s major

bushland reserves by the bush regeneration team, including Mt Alexandra,

Mt Gibraltar, Wingello, Gibbergunyah, Berrima Weir and Boronia Park;

rabbit and fox baiting in Hammock Hill, Mansfield Reserve, Mt Alexandra

and Gibbergunyah Reserves; the joint funding of the Regional Illegal

Dumping (RID) squad program which operated across the Shire: the

negotiation and implementation of pilot plastic bag reduction programmes

in Robertson and Fitzroy Falls and the negotiation of 19 Vegetation

Conservation agreements with private landowners to provide financial

incentives to conserve Endangered Ecological Community bushland on

their land.

Significant improvements continue to be made to improving

environmental management by local industry as a result of the pro-active

Environmental Review and Education and the Sediment and Erosion

Control programmes. Community education to raise awareness of

pollution control legislation and environmental awareness in general

included production and distribution of the “Solutions To Pollution”

newsletters for businesses, implementation of the Sustaining Wingecarribee

programme, the development and production of the Wingecarribee

Environment Management Directory booklet and the preparation of

displays for World Environment Day and the Environment Expo.

Further information regarding some of the environment levy funded

projects is included in the State of the Environment Report.




The Wingecarribee Our Future Environment programme, formally approved by

the Minister of Local Government in June 2003, continued in the 2005/06 year.

Expenditure has focused on three broad themes: improving natural area land

management, improving our rivers and creeks and protecting the biodiversity

values of the Shire’s natural resources.


The environmental levy programme provided on ground and technical support

to Bushcare and Landcare Groups at Cosgrove Park and Whites Creek in Moss

Vale, Mittagong Creek in Bowral, Gibbergunyah Creek in Mittagong, Mansfield

and Hammock Hill Reserves in East Bowral, Garland Rd Reserve in Bundanoon,

Mt Gibraltar Reserve, along Caalong Creek in Robertson, along Stonequarry

Walk in Berrima and at Burrawang cemetery and nearby road reserves.


included: creek bank restoration at Gibbergunyah Creek, Mittagong Creek,

Whites Creek, Iron Mines Creek, Chinamans Creek, Caalang Creek, along the

Wingecarribee River in the Moss Vale to Burradoo area and the creekline

below Lake Alexandra; bushland rehabilitation at Penrose, Mt Gibraltar,

Hammock Hill, and Welby; roadside weed control program on most of the

Shires roads; bush regeneration work in Council’s major bushland reserves by

the bush regeneration team, including Mt Alexandra, Mt Gibraltar, Wingello,

Gibbergunyah, Berrima Weir, Riverbend Reserve, Goanna Falls Reserve and

Boronia Park; rabbit and fox baiting in Hammock Hill, Mansfield Reserve, Mt

Alexandra and Gibbergunyah Reserves; the joint funding of the Regional Illegal

Dumping (RID) squad program which operated across the Shire: the

negotiation and implementation of a pilot plastic bag reduction programme in

Bundanoon, fire trail maintenance in the major bushland reserves and the

negotiation of Vegetation Conservation agreements with private landowners

to provide financial incentives to conserve Endangered Ecological Community

bushland on their land.

Significant improvements continue to be made to improving environmental


Review and Education and the Sediment and Erosion Control programmes.

Community education to raise awareness of pollution control legislation and

environmental awareness in general included production and distribution of

the “Solutions To Pollution” newsletters for businesses and the preparation of

displays for World Environment Day and the Environment Expo.

During the year external grant funding of over $350,000 was awarded to

Council for natural resource projects supported by the environment levy.

Further information regarding some of the environment levy funded projects is

included in the most recent State of the Environment Report.







management, improving our rivers and creeks and protecting the biodiversity


Total expenditure during 2006/07 was $783,434

The environmental levy programme provided on ground and technical support

to Bushcare and Landcare Groups at Cosgrove Park and Whites Creek in Moss

Vale, Mittagong Creek in Bowral, Gibbergunyah Creek in Mittagong, Mansfield

and Hammock Hill Reserves in East Bowral, Garland Rd Reserve in Bundanoon,

Mt Gibraltar Reserve, along Caalong Creek in Robertson, along Stonequarry

Walk in Berrima, Yerrinbool, Penrose, Mt Alexandra Reserve, Chinamans Creek

in Mittagong, Hilltop, Caalang Creek in Robertson, Indigo Creek in Exeter and at

Burrawang cemetery and nearby road reserves.


included: creek bank restoration at Iron Mines Creek, Mansfield Reserve,

Gibbergunyah Creek, Mittagong Creek, Whites Creek, Chinamans Creek,

Wingecarribee River in the Moss Vale to Berrima area and the creekline below

Lake Alexandra; bushland rehabilitation at Mt Alexandra, Mt Gibraltar,

Hammock Hill and Welby; roadside weed control program on most of the

Shires roads; bush regeneration work in Council’s major bushland reserves by

the bush regeneration team, including Mt Alexandra, Mt Gibraltar,

Gibbergunyah, Berrima Weir, Riverbend Reserve, and Boronia Park; rabbit and

fox baiting in Hammock Hill, Mansfield Reserve, Mt Alexandra and

Gibbergunyah Reserves; the joint funding of the Regional Illegal Dumping (RID)

squad program which operated across the Shire: walking trail maintenance in

the major bushland reserves and the negotiation of Vegetation Conservation

agreements with private landowners to provide financial incentives to

conserve Endangered Ecological Community bushland on their land.

Improvements continue to be made to environmental management by local

industry as a result of the pro-active Environmental Review and Education and

the Sediment and Erosion Control programmes. Community education to raise

awareness of pollution control legislation and environmental awareness in

general included holding the Green Plumbers Forum, the Green Power Tour to

encourage the community to use “green power”, production and distribution

of the Ecological footprint Quiz and the preparation of displays for the

Environment Fair.

During the year significant external grant funding was awarded to Council to

extend the work able to be funded by the environment levy for natural

resource projects.

Further information regarding some of the environment levy funded projects is

included in the most recent State of the Environment Report.







management; improving our rivers and creeks; and protecting the biodiversity


Total expenditure during 2007/08 was approximately $773,008.

The environment levy programme provided on ground and technical support

to Bushcare and Landcare Groups working at Cosgrove Park and Whites Creek

in Moss Vale, Mittagong Creek in Bowral, Gibbergunyah Creek in Mittagong,

Mansfield and Hammock Hill Reserves in East Bowral, Garland Rd Reserve and

Currabunda wetland in Bundanoon, Mt Gibraltar Reserve, along Caalong Creek

in Robertson, along Stonequarry Walk in Berrima, along Wingecarribee River,

Yerrinbool, Penrose, Mt Alexandra Reserve, Chinamans Creek in Mittagong,

Hilltop, Indigo Creek in Exeter and at Burrawang.


included: creek bank restoration at Iron Mines Creek, Mansfield Reserve

restoration, Gibbergunyah Creek weed control, Mittagong Creek restoration,

Whites Creek rehabilitation, Chinamans Creek weed control, Wingecarribee

River in the Moss Vale to Berrima area; roadside weed control program; bush

regeneration work in Council’s major bushland reserves, including Mt

Alexandra, Mt Gibraltar, Gibbergunyah, Riverbend Reserve, Berrima Weir,

Hammock Hill, Boronia Park, Paddy’s River and Welby Reserves; rabbit and fox

baiting in Hammock Hill, Mansfield Reserve, Mt Alexandra , Gibbergunyah

Reserves and Bong Bong Common; the installation of protective bollards at

Berrima Weir Reserve and Cunningham Park; the joint funding of the Regional

Illegal Dumping (RID) squad program which operated across the Shire; walking

trail maintenance in the major bushland reserves and the negotiation of

Vegetation Conservation agreements with private landowners to provide

financial incentives to conserve remnant Endangered Ecological Community

bushland on their land.

Improvements continue to be made to environmental management of

construction sites to reduce their off site impacts by the pro-active Sediment

and Erosion Control programme. Community education to raise awareness of

environmental issues in general included holding the Green Power Tour to

encourage the community to use “green power”, production and distribution

of the Wingecarribee Web and the joint organisation of displays for the

Environment Fair.

During the year significant external grant funding was awarded to Council to

extend the work able to be funded by the environment levy for environmental

projects.

Public consultation was undertaken regarding the proposal to apply to the

Minister for Local Government to extend the Environment Levy programme

from 2008 to 2013 and a submission was prepared and lodged with the

Minister.




Following approval by the Minister for Local Government in July 2008, the

Wingecarribee Our Future Environment (WOFE) programme for 2008 - 13 was

implemented throughout the 2008/09 financial year. The WOFE programme focuses

on four main areas; the restoration of degraded river systems, urban sustainability,

supporting and improving the level of knowledge of the community in environment

issues and biodiversity conservation.

The environment levy programme provided on ground and technical support to

Bushcare and Landcare Groups working at Gibbergunyah Creek in Mittagong, Cosgrove

Park and Whites Creek in Moss Vale, Mittagong Creek in Bowral, Mansfield and

Hammock Hill Reserves in East Bowral, Garland Rd Reserve and Currabunda wetland in

Bundanoon, Mt Gibraltar Reserve, Caalong Creek in Robertson, Paddy’s River Swamp,

along Wingecarribee River in Berrima , Yerrinbool, Penrose, Mt Alexandra Reserve,

Chinamans Creek in Mittagong, Hilltop and Indigo Creek in Exeter.

Major natural resource management projects undertaken during 2008/09 included:

Mansfield Reserve bushland regeneration, Gibbergunyah Creek weed control,

Mittagong Creek restoration, Whites Creek rehabilitation, Chinamans Creek weed

control, Wingecarribee River restoration in the Moss Vale to Berrima area; bush

regeneration work in Council’s major bushland reserves, including Mt Alexandra, Mt

Gibraltar, Gibbergunyah, Riverbend Reserve, Berrima Weir, Hammock Hill, Boronia

Park, Paddy’s River and Welby Reserves; rabbit and fox baiting in bushland Reserves;

the joint funding of the Regional Illegal Dumping (RID) squad program which operated

across the Shire; walking trail maintenance in the major reserves and the negotiation

of Vegetation Conservation Agreements with private landowners to provide financial

incentives to conserve remnant Endangered Ecological Community bushland on their

land.

The major focus of the urban sustainability programme is to engage and partner with

industry and business groups to reduce environmental risk and potential negative

impacts and improve business environmental performance and achieve longer term

sustainable solutions for the community. To this end the Sustainable Futures Business

Plan was prepared. The aim of this program is to implement sustainability analysis

diagnostics on individual businesses within the tourism industry, the Civic Centre and

Visitor Information Centre. The diagnostics were developed by the Department of

Environment Climate Change and Water and Business Treading Lightly to enable

preparation of Sustainability Action Plans.

Improvements continue to be made to environmental management of construction

sites to reduce their off site impacts by the proactive Sediment and Erosion Control

programme.

Community education to raise awareness of environmental issues in general included

holding the Wingecarribee Schools Environment Fair, production and distribution of

the Wingecarribee Web and holding workshops for community volunteers at the

Bushcare community nursery.

During the year significant external grant funding was awarded to Council to extend

the work able to be funded by the environment

levy for environmental projects.




Council was granted State Government approval to implement an environment levy,

which was introduced in July 2000 for an initial period of three years, and has since

been extended twice up to June 2013. The levy is being used to fund the

Wingecarribee Our Future Environment (WOFE) programme. WOFE is a multi-faceted

environmental programme which includes four main areas; the restoration of

degraded river systems, biodiversity conservation, supporting and improving the level

of knowledge of the community in environment issues and urban sustainability.

The WOFE programme provided on ground and technical support to Bushcare and

Landcare Groups working at Gibbergunyah Creek in Mittagong, Cosgrove Park and

Whites Creek in Moss Vale, Mittagong Creek in Bowral, Mansfield and Hammock Hill

Reserves in East Bowral, Garland Rd Reserve and Currabunda wetland in Bundanoon,

Mt Gibraltar Reserve, Caalong Creek in Robertson, Paddy’s River Swamp, along

Wingecarribee River in Berrima , Yerrinbool, Penrose, Mt Alexandra Reserve,

Chinamans Creek in Mittagong and Hilltop.

Major natural resource management projects undertaken during 2009/10 included:

• Mansfield Reserve bushland regeneration, Gibbergunyah Creek weed control,

Mittagong Creek restoration, Whites Creek rehabilitation, Chinamans Creek

weed control,

• Bush regeneration work in Council’s major bushland reserves, including Mt

Alexandra, Mt Gibraltar, Gibbergunyah, Riverbend Reserve, Berrima Weir,

Hammock Hill, Boronia Park, Paddy’s River and Welby Reserves;

• Fox baiting program in partnership with DECC&W, Forestry and landholders;

• Joint funding of the Regional Illegal Dumping (RID) squad program which

operated across the Shire;

• walking trail maintenance in the major reserves

• Vegetation Conservation Agreements with private landowners to provide

financial incentives to conserve remnant Endangered Ecological Community

bushland on their land; and

• Completion of weed mapping data at Stingray Swamp, Penrose as part of the

Saving Our Swamps program

Council continues to be awarded external grant funding to extend the project work

able to be achieved by the environment levy. One of these projects in the past year

was the completion of Mt Gibraltar trail upgrades where a $20,000 Community Action

Grant was awarded.

Four community events were made possible via WOFE funding this past year. These

included the annual School’s Environment Day, marking of World Wetlands Day at

Cecil Hoskins Reserve, celebration of World Environment Day via an information stall at

Highlands Market Place in Mittagong, and in support of Threatened Species Week the

development of local species profiles with intention to add to these in the

future.

The major focus of the urban sustainability programme is to engage and partner with

industry andbusiness groups as well as the broader community to reduce

environmental risk, increase the Shire’s resilience and improve business environmental

performance. To this end the Sustainable Futures Business Plan was prepared and

attracted state government funding of $200,000 over 2 years to help complete

sustainability analysis diagnostics on individual businesses within the tourism industry,

the Civic Centre and Visitor Information Centre. This engagement process will then

lead to preparation and implementation of Sustainability Action Plans for these

businesses and facilities.



WINGECARRIBEE ENVIRONMENT LEVY CASE STUDY

Bus

hcar

e P

rogr

am

The bushland in the Wingecarribee Shire is exceptional. In a relatively small area we have an incredibly diverse range of flora, fauna and geography, ranging from original rainforest, tall eucalypt forest and open woodland. So it is vital that we at least maintain, if not enhance, one of the most admired aspects of the Southern Highlands.

Looking after this bushland involves a lot more than weeding since our bushland areas are under constant threat from a number of other threatening processes including dieback, fragmentation, continual disturbance, inappropriate fire regimes and general lack of maintenance.

Fortunately Council has a dedicated Bushcare Team, who work on a regular basis with an energetic band of volunteer bush regenerators. The Shire’s 15 Bushcare and Landcare groups are active on 46 Bushcare work sites, and also receive support from local schools and TAFE students. Together they have planted well over 7,000 plants in the past year, attacked 46 different types of weeds and contributed over 5,600 volunteer hours.

The 170 plus people who volunteer in these teams not only help to preserve our biodiversity, but also make new friends and work together on projects that make a visible difference to the environmental values and quality of life in the Southern Highlands.

These efforts have helped protect endangered ecological communities, helped stabilise stream banks and enhance downstream water quality, helped establish or enhance wildlife corridors and protect and enhance habitat values throughout the Shire. They have made a significant contribution to educating our youth on the need to care for our environment, helped foster their community spirit and demonstrated to them that by working together we can make a difference for a better future.

Wingecarribee Shire’s Bushcare and Landcare groups always welcome new volunteers to their ranks and Council provides volunteer induction and workplace health and safety training to minimise risk to volunteers, the general public and the environment. Various other natural resource management training is also provided to ensure that the Bushcare & Landcare teams follow best practice in all their activities.


Land

For

Wild

life

and

V

eget

atio

nC

onse

rvat

ion

Pro

gram

s

Wingecarribee Shire Council runs two programs, funded by the Environment Levy, that assist private landholders with conserving native vegetation for wildlife. Land For Wildlife has been offered since 2009 and aims to assist landholders to maintain wildlife habitats on their land. Registration is free and non-binding. The program is available to landholders who have properties with half a hectare or more of native bushland and are willing to manage all or part of their property in an environmentally sustainable way. As part of the Land For Wildlife program a project officer will undertake a property assessment which includes environmental management issues, species list of plants and advice on how to integrate wildlife conservation into the property’s usual management practices. In addition to environmental property assessments, Land For Wildlife gives landholders the opportunity to participate in workshops, meet like-minded people and receive up to date information via fact sheets and newsletters. 52 properties are currently signed up to the program conserving 360 Ha of native bushland. Properties involved in the program range from schools, farms and lifestyle properties to even a monastery.

The Vegetation Conservation Program commenced in 2004 with the aim of encouraging and assisting landholders to conserve endangered or significant vegetation types within the shire by offering financial incentives. Properties that meet specific criteria are eligible to apply for up to $10,000 to assist with revegetation, fencing off native bushland and undertaking weed control. A voluntary agreement is made between the landholder and Council to help the landholder conserve and manage the native vegetation on their property. It is not registered on the title of the land and only applies to the area being conserved. Once an agreement has been negotiated the conservation area must be maintained by the landholder for the length of the agreement, which is usually for 5 or 10 years. There are currently 68 properties with Management Agreements conserving 330 ha of native bushland throughout the shire. This project has been successful in preserving Endangered Ecological Communities on private land by reducing issues such as unmanaged grazing, weed invasion, loss of biodiversity, clearing and fragmentation of vegetation.


Com

mun

ity N

urse

ry

The Community Nursery was set up in mid 2008, to provide local provenance plant stock for local revegetation projects that were being undertaken by council

and local landholders involved in Council's vegetation conservation program.

Funding from Council's Environment Levy along with additional funding from the Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Authority and the Sydney Catchment Authority was utilised to expand existing nursery infrastructure at the Moss Vale depot into what is now the Community Nursery.

A dedicated group of volunteers eager to grow the necessary plants came together and now hold monthly working bees, supported by Council’s bush regeneration team. The CMA also helped arrange a number of training workshops to ensure the nursery volunteers were following best practice. These training courses included seed collection, sorting and storage; basic plant propagation techniques and nursery management.

A poly house was installed early in 2010 to allow germination of seed all year round, and swapping over to commercially-produced potting media increased

the productivity to around 10,000 tube stock annually. The 20 nursery volunteers help provide plant species that are not readily available through commercial nurseries and the plants are all grown from local provenance seed sources.

Running in conjunction with the nursery is the Shire's seed bank, which is a store of seeds collected from all corners of the shire, for use in revegetation projects. Seed is opportunistically collected while the Bushcare team is working on Bushcare sites, undertaking fire trail inspections and other duties. This seed is cleaned, sorted and logged into the seed bank database before being stored in a fridge. Like the nursery, this seed bank is a valuable asset, since without it the nursery could never reach its full potential.

It is hoped in the future the Community Nursery will be given a larger, dedicated and more permanent home where it can grow a greater range of native plant species indigenous to the Southern Highlands and provide sufficient stock to keep up with the revegetation aspirations of the Shire.

We also hope to attract more volunteers to the Community Nursery, both those who can share their knowledge and those who wish to learn more as they help grow the plants for the Shire’s revegetation program.


Win

geca

rrib

ee S

choo

ls E

nviro

nmen

t Day

Wingecarribee Shire Council facilitates an environmentally based event for primary school students within Wingecarribee Shire. Wingecarribee Schools Environment Day first commenced in October 2006. It has become an annual event open to all primary schools within Wingecarribee Shire, with a target audience of years 5 and 6. This event provides local schools with the opportunity to learn and take part in environmentally focused interactive activities at one location for an entire day at no cost to the schools. Lake Alexandra Reserve, Mittagong provides a wonderful setting for this event, which consists of built parkland, play equipment and bbq facilities, as well as a natural bushland setting back drop for students to explore. The Wingecarribee Schools Environment Day provides a positive way of instilling important environmental messages in the minds of the students. It is an effective way of enhancing student respect and understanding of sustainable living and appreciation of the planet and its limited resources. Every year approximately 500 students attend this event. Activities that are offered to students vary from year to year to ensure that the event continues to engage the interest of the schools and most importantly the students themselves. Examples of activities that students have enjoyed in previous years have included worm farming, simple water quality monitoring, creating habitat for native wildlife in the backyard using old boots and pipes, interactions with live native fauna, environmental theatre, creating no dig vegetable gardens and making pizzas using solar energy.

Another positive outcome provided by the Wingecarribee Schools Environment Day is the opportunity for schools to network with other agencies. Agencies that have attended this event and run activities have included the Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Authority, Wingecarribee Landcare and Bushcare Network, NSW Rural Fire Service, Sydney Catchment Management Authority, Office of Environment and Heritage (NPWS) and the Southern Highlands Bird Watchers Group. In 2011 this event was nominated in the Southern Highlands Business Awards for Excellence in an Attraction. This event is also funded by:

And Wingecarribee Landcare and Bushcare Network


Mou

nt G

ibra

ltar

Land

care

& B

ushc

are

Gro

up

Mount Gibraltar Landcare and Bushcare was formed in 1993 to assist in the care, control and management of the Mount Gibraltar Reserve.

Wingecarribee Shire Council’s Bushcare staff are funded by the Environment Levy to provide training and specialist advice to Landcare and Bushcare members. Council also assists the Mt Gibraltar Group in preparing grant application and administering grants on their behalf.

This group undertakes weekly bush regeneration on the 130 hectare public reserve of Mount Gibraltar, removing the dense infestation of environmental weeds, working to restore the heritage infrastructure and raising community awareness of the natural heritage.

Mount Gilbraltar, known locally as The Gib, is an exposed 150 million year old volcanic intrusion composed of unique microsyenite rock It was quarried for 100 years (1886-1986) ‘Bowral Trachyte” stone was used for building important public buildings, monuments, kerb stones and railway ballast.

Mount Gibraltar Reserve conserves the natural Endangered Ecological Community of Mount Gibraltar Forest. It is an important link in the east west biodiversity corridor at the head of the Wingecarribee and Nattai catchment.

The group has promoted and campaigned hard for the Environment Levy to support a qualified Bushcare division that provides professional assistance to volunteers and on going maintenance for regeneration projects within the Shire.

In 2007, the group published a beautiful full colour hardcopy book: The Gib, Mount Gibraltar, Southern Highlands, 2007. Other Projects undertaken include: • Bush regeneration • Stone landscaping • Repairs to shelters and walking trails • Fire control planning • Land acquisition • Ongoing protection of the Reserve

• Publication of Bush Regeneration Manual and Visitor’s Guide • Support for exhibitions and displays about natural environment

management issues.

BUSHCARE ‐ RESTORATION

STONE QUARRY WALK

BEFORE

AFTER

BUSHCARE ‐ RESTORATION

AFTER

BEFORE

Objective 1.1 Manage invasive species in past project sites Target Year 1: Develop weed management plans for environmentally significant Council managed lands. Year 1 Target -Achieved: Weed Management Plans developed. Detailed data regarding the types, density and area of weed species found and re-moved within Council Reserves has been compiled for a 2 year period. This informa-tion along with current mapping was used to develop Councils Weed Management

Objective 1.2 Weed Eradication Target Year 1: Investment in Weed Management across the Shire is directed to weed priorities, as identified in Weed Management Plans Year 1 Target -Achieved: Weeding carried out by WSC bushcare staff on 28 bush care sites. WSC bushcare team conducted 419 hours of primary weeding, 221 hours of

secondary weeding & 2078 hrs weed maintenance in the reporting period. Contractors were engaged for weed removal at bush care sites

Objective 2.1 Increase native vegetation extent through revegetation Target Year 1: 8,000 native plant species established Year 1 Target -Achieved: 7065 native plants were planted in the reporting period. 350 native plants were given away to Moss Vale public school 810 native plants were donated to the community nursery

Objective 2. 2 Conserve significant native vegetation on private lands Target Year 1 :25ha of significant native vegetation conserved under landholder agree-ment Year 1 Target -Achieved:

9.4 ha under conservation agreements 73.37 ha under Land For Wildlife agreements since July 2010

Objective 2. 3 Protect and restore natural ecosystem Target Year 1: 50% of all endangered plant communities managed by Council to be under maintenance management programs Year 1 Target -Achieved: 57% of the shires Endangered Ecological Communities are under maintenance pro-grams including those at Mt Gibraltar, Mansfield Reserve Oxley Hill & Hammock Hill Reserves plus other small reserves.

Wingecarribee Environment Strategy 2010‐2011 ANNUAL REPORT

ACHIEVEMENTS AT A GLANCE

Objective 2. 4 Prepare and implement effective management plans to minimise the impact of activities that damage native habitats and assist in the protection of threatened species. Target Year 1: Vertebrate Pest Management Plan completed for one Council reserve containing significant fauna and habitats Target Year 1-Achieved: Mt Gibraltar reserve pest animal management plan completed. Participation in the regional wild dog Management Plan in consultation with the wild

dog working committee

Objective 3.1 Educate & train to build the capacity of the Community to act on Environmental Issues Target Year 1: Develop programs which align to Global, National and State environmental awareness campaigns Year 1 Target-Achieved: Threatened Species Day Sept 2010. Six fact sheets developed National Tree Planting Day conducted October 2010 World Wetlands Day 2 Feb 2011- Focused on Wingecarribee Swamp. Newspaper

articles and information on WSC website including school activities. Indian Myna Program ongoing. Land for Wildlife Conference plus Field Trip May 2011 World Environment Day bus tour. Sunday 5 June Fridge Buyback launched in Wingecarribee Shire. Supporting HNCMA BIOLINK project– Part of the Great Eastern Ranges initiative. Schools Environment Day plans were was postponed due to bad weather

Objective 3.2 Develop and support community volunteer based environmental program Target Year 1: Develop and support community volunteer based environmental program Year 1 Target -Achieved: Bushcare staff continue to support and work alongside the shire’s 174

Environmental Volunteers Volunteers donated 2597 hours of their time to bush regeneration activities in the 2010-11 Bird Workshop for Southern Highlands birdwatchers held on 9 April 2011 Southern Highlands Harvest currently have 40 Businesses registered BIOLINK Workshop supported by Council Land For Wildlife - 42 properties involved in the shire Frensham’s school excursions to Penrose Swamp– conducted by Council’s

Bushcare team



Objective 3.3 Communication pathways developed to ensure effective communication with community to support Environmental Levy achievements Target Year 1: Communication pathways developed to ensure effective communication to support Environment Levy achievements Year 1 Target -Achieved: Development of Environment Levy Logo Environment Levy marquee purchased to help promote Levy at events Wingecarribee Today now has an allocated section for regular Environment Levy news Regular newspaper articles promoting Environment Levy programs or achievements include, *World

Wetlands day. World Environment Day Bus Tour 4 Events per year supported by Environment Levy Environment Levy stall present at Council’s Information Kiosks

Objective 3.4 Monitor, Review and Report

Target Year 1: Methods and plans established to guide community groups and Council in the monitoring, review and reporting process. Specifically linking the process to State Government monitoring and HNCMA MER (Monitoring Evaluation,Reporting ) programs. Progress towards Year 1 Target: Baseline data collection by bushcare team to enable better review and reporting Environment Strategy developed and adopted by Council to give clear direction for Environment Levy projects and a framework for reporting. Introduction of new monthly and annual reporting format.

Objective 4.1 Develop Wingecarribee Riparian Management Strategy Target Year 1: Prepare a riparian strategy which identifies priority areas for on ground investment in riparian health Progress against Year 1 Target:

Wingecarribee Shire Council Stormwater Management Plan 2010-2031 outlines priorities for Riparian Management Plans from a flood risk perspective.

Creation of draft scope of Riparian Strategy commenced



Objective 4.2 Clean and healthy urban streams and creeks Target Year 1: Develop management plans for all creeks flowing through the urban areas of Moss Vale, Bowral & Mittagong Progress against Year 1 Target: Consultant engaged to prepare Mittagong Creek Riparian Management Plan

Objective 4.3 Revegetation and rehabilitation of Council managed land riparian land Target Year 1: Management plans developed for all riparian lands managed by council. Priority riparian areas identified through plans and Wetland Strategy planted with 5,000 native plants. (Wingecarribee, Bong Bong Common, Paddy’s River, Nattai River) Progress against Year 1 Target: Minimal progress with Riparian management plans Riparian land planted with 3,802 new plants National Tree Day held on riparian land along Whites Creek, Moss Vale



. . .

ENVIRONMENT LEVY SURVEY Compared with other Councils, our shire has large expanses of bushland reserves and natural areas, providing opportunities for recreation as well as protecting local biodiversity and water quality. This gives the shire its unique character, however it also creates financial and management challenges for council who are caretakers of the many reserves and natural areas.

Wingecarribee Shire Council first obtained approval to charge an Environment Levy in 2000. The levy, renewed several times, has helped fund works and programs required for management of the natural environment. Activities funded through the environmental levy include:

Supporting the volunteer bushcare team who work in our Bushland reserves

Supporting community activities such as Schools Environment Day and National Tree Day

Managing riverside vegetation to help stop erosion and protect water quality.

Supporting rural landholders with incentives and advice on how to conserve habitat on their properties.

Funding Council staff that manage environmental projects and on‐ground works.

The current Environment Levy was approved for 5 years and is due to expire in June 2013. Council will apply to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) early next year for a continuation of the levy.

Council’s preference is for a permanent levy however it has developed a number of options concerning the future funding of environmental works, and is now seeking community comment for inclusion in its application to IPART.

It is important for Council to ensure residents understand these before providing feedback. This means the survey will take up to 15 minutes but it is very important to us to hear your views.

Please take a few minutes to read and complete our survey, then fold where marked, seal with a piece of tape and put it into any post box to be received by 9 December 2011. It is postage paid and being returned to an independent research company. All responses will be kept strictly confidential and a report prepared for Council outlining the community’s responses.

For further information please contact Barry Arthur, Manager Environment and Sustainability, on 4868 0888 or email [email protected].

Thank you in advance for taking the time to assist us in this way.

Find out more about the proposal: View displays in the Moss Vale Civic Centre or local libraries,

Participate in an online forum and view associated documents at www.yoursaywingecarribee.com.au

Encourage others to have a say Let your friends and neighbours know about this consultation so they can have their say too.

We will be randomly selecting residents to participate in telephone and postal surveys in November.

The opportunity to complete a survey closes on Friday 9 December 2011 (to allow time to compile and analyse survey responses) however you can continue to comment in other ways until 27 January 2012.

Which type of rates do you pay? Take a look at the columns below.

How do the options affect you? Which option would you prefer?

RESIDENTIAL RATES BUSINESS RATES FARMLAND RATES




Option 2: Some levy Under this option, from July 2013 a new 1.86% Environment Levy is charged. The new levy would be 45% lower than the current environment levy and may mean community environmental events, revegetation projects, weed management, private landholder programs or sustainability initiatives would have to be reduced under this option. Under this option a reduced level of environmental services would mean the average RESIDENTIAL rate payer would be charged $22.26 /year or 43 cents per week instead of 78 cents per week.

Option 2: Some levy Under this option, from July 2013 a new 0.93% Environment Levy is charged. The new levy would be 46.5% lower than the current environment levy and may mean community environmental events, revegetation projects, weed management, private landholder programs or sustainability initiatives would have to be reduced under this option. Under this option a reduced level of environmental services would mean the average BUSINESS rate payer would be charged $29.48 /year or 57 cents per week instead of $1.06 per week.

Option 2: Some levy Under this option, from July 2013 a new 2.16% Environment Levy is charged. The new levy would be 46.5% lower than the current environment levy and may mean community environmental events, revegetation projects, weed management, private landholder programs or sustainability initiatives would have to be reduced under this option. Under this option a reduced level of environmental services would mean the average FARMLAND rate payer would be charged $58.10 /year or $1.12 per week instead of $2.09 per week.

Option 3: Permanent levy Under this option, Council permanently collects the 3.6% Environment Levy, effectively becoming part of the annual rates charge but itemised separately on your bill. For example from July 2012 the levy would cost the average RESIDENTIAL rate payer $40.40/year which amounts to about 78 cents per week. Long term environmental works and initiatives could be planned and carried out, ensuring the shire maintains, protects and enhances its distinct and diverse natural environment. Levy projects and spending would be documented each year in Council’s annual report.

Option 3: Permanent levy Under this option, Council permanently collects the 1.73% Environment Levy, effectively becoming part of the annual rates charge but itemised separately on your bill. For example from July 2012 the levy would cost the average BUSINESS rate payer $53.50/year which amounts to about $1.03 per week. Long term environmental works and initiatives could be planned and carried out, ensuring the shire maintains, protects and enhances its distinct and diverse natural environment. Levy projects and spending would be documented each year in Council’s annual report.

Option 3: Permanent levy Under this option, Council permanently collects the 3.96% Environment Levy, effectively becoming part of the annual rates charge but itemised separately on your bill. For example from July 2012 the levy would cost the average FARMLAND rate payer $105.47/year which amounts to about $2.03 per week. Long term environmental works and initiatives could be planned and carried out, ensuring the shire maintains, protects and enhances its distinct and diverse natural environment. Levy projects and spending would be documented each year in Council’s annual report.

Option 4: Continue Levy For A Time Under this option, the 3.6% Environment Levy would be continued, not permanently, but for a fixed period of time. As in option 3, from July 2012 the levy would cost the average RESIDENTIAL rate payer $40.40/year which amounts to about 78 cents per week. For a fixed time environmental works and initiatives could be planned and carried out, ensuring the shire maintains, protects and enhances its distinct and diverse natural environment. Levy related projects and spending on works would be documented each year in Council’s annual report.

Option 4: Continue Levy For A Time Under this option, the 1.73% Environment Levy would be continued, not permanently, but for a fixed period of time. As in option 3, from July 2012 the levy would cost the average BUSINESS rate payer $53.50/year which amounts to about $1.03 cents per week. For a fixed time environmental works and initiatives could be planned and carried out, ensuring the shire maintains, protects and enhances its distinct and diverse natural environment. Levy related projects and spending on works would be documented each year in Council’s annual report.

Option 4: Continue Levy For A Time Under this option, the 3.96% Environment Levy would be continued, not permanently, but for a fixed period of time. As in option 3, from July 2012 the levy would cost the average FARMLAND rate payer $105.47/year which amounts to about $2.03 cents per week. For a fixed time environmental works and initiatives could be planned and carried out, ensuring the shire maintains, protects and enhances its distinct and diverse natural environment. Levy related projects and spending on works would be documented each year in Council’s annual report.

Survey continued over page…

Not at all Extremely Important Important

1‐ ‐ ‐2‐ ‐ ‐3‐ ‐ ‐4‐ ‐ ‐5‐ ‐ ‐6‐ ‐ ‐7‐‐ ‐8‐ ‐ ‐9‐ ‐ ‐10

1‐ ‐ ‐2‐ ‐ ‐3‐ ‐ ‐4‐ ‐ ‐5‐ ‐ ‐6‐ ‐ ‐7‐‐ ‐8‐ ‐ ‐9‐ ‐ ‐10

1‐ ‐ ‐2‐ ‐ ‐3‐ ‐ ‐4‐ ‐ ‐5‐ ‐ ‐6‐ ‐ ‐7‐‐ ‐8‐ ‐ ‐9‐ ‐ ‐10

1‐ ‐ ‐2‐ ‐ ‐3‐ ‐ ‐4‐ ‐ ‐5‐ ‐ ‐6‐ ‐ ‐7‐‐ ‐8‐ ‐ ‐9‐ ‐ ‐10

1‐ ‐ ‐2‐ ‐ ‐3‐ ‐ ‐4‐ ‐ ‐5‐ ‐ ‐6‐ ‐ ‐7‐‐ ‐8‐ ‐ ‐9‐ ‐ ‐10

ENVIRONMENT LEVY SURVEY

Please place a tick in the boxes which appear closest to your answers.. 1. In which suburb or locality do you live? ______________________________________________ 2. Are you:

Male 1 Female 2

3. Which age bracket best describes you?

18‐34 years 1 35‐54 years 2 55‐69 years 3 70 or more years 4

4. Do you currently pay rates to Wingecarribee Shire Council?

Yes 1 Please proceed to Question 5 No 2 Please proceed to Question 6

5. What type of rates do you pay?

Residential 1 Business 2 Farmland 3 Not sure 4

6. Prior to this survey, were you aware of the Environment Levy that is a component of rates?

Yes 1 No 2 Not sure 3

7. Which option do you prefer? (Only choose one) See page 2 for more information.

Option 1: No levy 1 Please proceed to Question 8 Option 2: Some levy 2 Please proceed to Question 9 Option 3: Permanent levy 3 Please proceed to Question 9 Option 4: Continue Levy For A Time 4 Please proceed to Question 9

8. If you chose Option One – No Levy, why is this so?

Too expensive 1 Pay enough Council rates already 2 Environmental projects should be privately funded 3 Environment already has enough funding 4 Haven’t seen any benefits in my local area 6

Volunteers do this work 7 I just can’t afford it – all my bills are increasing 9 Other (please specify): _________________________________________

9. If the environment levy was set for a fixed period of time (rather than permanent), what period would you

support for the continuation of the Levy? 3 ‐ 5 years 1 6 – 10 years 2 11 – 15 years 3 More than 15 years 4

10. What importance do you place on the following programs? Please use a 1 – 10 scale, where 1 is not at all important and 10 is extremely important.

Water quality including maintaining healthy natural streams and creeks

Protect Wingecarribee’s distinct and diverse flora and fauna

Community environmental education

Sustainability initiatives to reduce resource consumption and waste

Weed management and maintenance of past project sites

11. If Council decides that the environmental program is to be funded from general rate funds, and not through an environment levy, which of the following services do you think Council could discontinue or reduce in order to fund the environmental program? (Choose as many as you like)

Pool facilities 1 Waste and recycling collection 8 Library services 2 Tourism 9 Sporting fields 3 Economic development 10 Road maintenance 4 Water and sewerage 11 Road construction 5 Sale yards 12 Community Halls 6 Development and building assessment 13 Parks and Gardens 7 Health inspections 14 None – all are important 15

Thank you very much for completing this survey. Wingecarribee Shire Council appreciates the time you have spent

answering these questions. Your responses will form part of a report to Council and subsequent application to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) early next year but you will remain anonymous. Our research is carried out in compliance with the privacy act and the information you have provided will only be used for research purposes.

Please fold the page so your personal details are hidden to maintain privacy. Seal with tape and post it back to the research company to arrive no later than Friday 9 December 2011. No postage stamp is necessary.

Become an Our Future ‐ Our Choice ‐ Our Say member Join other residents and become an Our Future ‐ Our Choice ‐ Our Say member. You will be provided with opportunities

to have a say about important decisions affecting the Wingecarribee local government area and also receive information about shire wide and locality specific projects.

Please provide your email address:

Questions/ Statement RESPONSE GO

TO Good morning, my name is xxxxxx from OWL Research & Marketing Pty Ltd.. We have been commissioned by Wingecarribee Shire Council to conduct a survey amongst a random selection of residents, concerning proposals for the Environmental Levy which is currently charged as part of your rates. This survey will take approximately 10-15 minutes to complete. May I please speak to: CHECK QUOTA. IF NOT AVAILABLE MAKE APPOINTMENT TO CALL BACK. Respondent Name______________________ Phone Number ________________ Time of Appointment ____________________________________________________________________________________________ READ STATEMENT: In October last year Wingecarribee Shire Council undertook research to identify our community’s priorities. 84% of survey respondents told us that healthy, natural urban streams and creeks were very important or important. 78% thought the restoration of natural bushland was very important or important. And 75% rated community environmental initiatives as very important or important. Compared with other Councils, our shire has large expanses of bushland reserves and natural areas, providing opportunities for recreation as well as protecting local biodiversity and water quality. This gives the shire its unique character, however it also creates financial and management challenges for council who are caretakers of the many reserves and natural areas. Wingecarribee Shire Council first obtained approval to charge an Environmental Levy in 2000. The levy, renewed several times, has helped fund works and programs required for management of the natural environment. Activities funded through the environmental levy include:

• Supporting the volunteer bushcare team who work in our Bushland reserves • Supporting community activities such as Schools Environment Day and National Tree Day • Managing riverside vegetation to help stop erosion and protect water quality. • Supporting rural landholders with incentives and advice on how to conserve habitat on their properties. • Funding 8 Council staff that manage environmental projects and on-ground works.

The current Environmental Levy was approved for 5 years and is due to expire in June 2013. Council is applying to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) early next year to seek approval in order to continue to collect the levy on a permanent basis. Council has developed a number of options concerning the future funding of environmental works, and is now seeking community comment for inclusion in its application to IPART. It is important for Council to ensure residents understand these before voting on their preference. This means the survey will take up to 15 minutes BUT it is VERY important to us to hear your views. Do you have time now to complete the survey or could we call you back at a more convenient time? Firstly a few questions about you and your location to ensure that our sample is a good representation of our community.

Q1. Where are you located? AVOCA AYLMERTON BANGADILLY BARREN GROUNDS BARRENGARRY BEAUMONT BELANGLO BERRIMA BONG BONG BOWRAL BRAEMAR BUDGONG BULLIO BUNDANOON BURRADOO

KNIGHTS HILL MACQUARIE PASS MANCHESTER SQUARE MANDEMAR MEDWAY MERYLA MITTAGONG MOSS VALE MOUNT LINDSEY MOUNT MURRAY MYRA VALE NEW BERRIMA PADDYS RIVER PENROSE PHEASANT GROUND RED ROCKS

(pre-coded all towns/villages/districts)

Q2

BURRAWANG CALWALLA CANYONLEIGH CARRINGTON FALLS COLO VALE EAST BOWRAL EAST KANGALOON EXETER FITZROY FALLS GLENQUARRY HIGH RANGE HILL TOP JOADJA KANGALOON KANGAROO VALLEY

ROBERTSON SUTTON FOREST TALLONG UPPER KANGAROO RIVER UPPER KANGAROO VALLEY WATTLE RIDGE WELBY WERAI WILDES MEADOW WILLOW VALE WINGELLO WOODLANDS YARRUNGA YERRINBOOL

Q2. Gender Male / Female Q3

Q3. Age Under 18 – too young 18-34 35-54 55-69 70 or more

Q4

Q4. Do you currently pay rates to Wingecarribee Shire Council? Yes / no Q6

Q5.Prior to this interview, were you aware of the Environmental Levy that is a component of rates?

Yes / no Q5

Q6. Is that on residential, business or farmland? Residential Farmland Business Other (Specify) _________

Divert to info & questions specific to each rate type

READ STATEMENT: As I mentioned, the current Environmental Levy has been in place since 2008 and Council is now seeking your opinion on options concerning the future funding of environmental works. In 2012 the Levy will cost the average residential rate payer $40.40/year which amounts to about 78 cents per week or 3.56% of your rates. It is important to Council that you understand the following proposals, including the potential costs to you into the future. Council has come up with four options for you to choose from. We call them a choice between No Levy, Some Levy, Permanent Levy and Continue Levy For A Time. I will explain these to you now and then repeat them, asking you to choose your preference. Option 1 : No levy . Under this option the Environmental Levy would cease in June 2013 and would be removed from your rates. Under this option Council could either: (A) Consider what level of environmental services it could continue to afford at the expense of reducing other council services. For example, some facilities may be closed, opening hours for some services could be reduced and/or less maintenance undertaken OR (B) The Environmental Levy and all environmental projects and activities funded by it would cease. Option 2: Some levy . Under this option, from July 2013 a new 1.86% Environmental Levy is charged. The new levy would be 45% lower than the current environmental levy and may mean community environmental events, revegetation projects, weed management, private landholder programs or sustainability initiatives would have to be reduced under this option. Under this option a reduced level of environmental services would mean the average residential rate payer would be charged $22.26 /year or 43 cents per week instead of 78 cents per week. Option 3: Permanent levy . Under this option, Council permanently collects the Environmental Levy, effectively becoming part of the annual rates charge but itemised separately on your bill. For example from July 2012 the levy would cost the average residential rate payer $40.40/year which amounts to about 78 cents per week. Long term environmental works and initiatives could be planned and carried out, ensuring the shire maintains, protects and enhances its distinct and diverse natural environment. Levy projects and spending would be documented each year in Council’s annual report. Option 4 : Continue Levy For A Time . Under this option, the Environmental Levy would be continued, not permanently, but for a fixed period of time . As in option 3, from July 2012 the levy would cost the average residential

rate payer $40.40/year which amounts to about 78 cents per week. For a fixed time environmental works and initiatives could be planned and carried out, ensuring the shire maintains, protects and enhances its distinct and diverse natural environment. Levy related projects and spending on works would be documented each year in Council’s annual report. I’ll now summarise the options so you can make your selection.

Q7. Which option do you prefer? Would you want me to give you a brief recap of each option or just list them?

Option 1: No levy . The Environmental Levy ceases in June 2013 and would be removed from your rates with Council determining either to fund some environmental services out of its general budget including reductions in other services OR ceasing all environmental projects and activities currently funded by the levy.

Q8

Option 2: Some levy . The Council introduces a new reduced Environmental Levy that is 1.86% of your rates. This lower levy would fund substantially less environmental services and works than under the current environmental levy.

Q9

Option 3: Permanent levy . Council continues to permanently collect the Environmental Levy at the current rate.

Q9

Option 4: Continue Levy For A Time . The Environmental Levy would be continued at the current rate, not permanently, but for a fixed period of time.

Q9

Q8. If you consider that the current Environmental Levy should not be continued – why is this so?

Options for interviewer to mark – NOT read to participant Remove 5 & 8 for online and

printed versions 1 Too expensive

2 Pay enough Council rates already

3 Environmental projects should be privately funded

4 Environment already has enough funding 5 Should be paid for out of carbon taxes

6 Haven’t seen any benefits in my local area 7 Volunteers to do this work

8 Too much money is being spent on wages and not enough on ground work 9 I just can’t afford it – all my bills are increasing

10 Other (Specify) ______

Free text response

Q10

Q9. If the environmental levy was set for a fixed period of time (rather than permanent), what period would you support for the continuation of the Levy? a) 3 - 5 years b) 6 – 10 years c) 11 – 15 years d) Greater than 15 years

Q10

Q10. From the list below what IMPORTANCE do you place on the following projects… RATE OUT OF 10

Q11

� Water quality including maintaining healthy natural streams and creeks � Protect Wingecarribee’s distinct and diverse natural environment � Community environmental education � Sustainability initiatives supporting the community to reduce resource consumption and

waste � Weed management and maintenance of past project sites

response 1-10 Scale 1 to 10

READ STATEMENT:

If Council decides that the environmental program is to be funded from general rate funds and not through an environmental levy…

Q11. Which of the following services do you think Council could discontinue or reduce in order to fund the environmental program? I’m going to list them and you can choose as many as you like – please stop me if I read one you’d like to choose

thankyou

a) Pool facilities b) Library services c) Sporting fields d) Road maintenance

e) Road construction f) Community halls g) Parks and gardens h) Waste and recycling collection i) Tourism j) Economic development k) Water and sewerage l) Saleyards m) Development and building assessment n) Health inspections o) None – all are important Thank you for participating in our survey. Wingecarribee Shire Council appreciates the time you have spent answering these questions.

Your responses will form part of a report to Council but you will remain anonymous.

Our research is carried out in compliance with the privacy act and the information that

you have provided will only be used for research purposes.

To see what other residents are saying about the environment levy and to participate in

online forums, visit www.yoursaywingecarribee.com.au

Become an Our Future - Our Choice - Our Say member Join other residents and become an Our Future - Our Choice - Our Say member. Members will be provided with

opportunities to have a say about important decisions affecting the Wingecarribee local government area and also

receive information about shire wide and locality specific projects.

Please give us your contact details. Your name: ____________________________Day time Phone _________________ Email _________________________________Your suburb ___________________ Or contact Council staff to register Charmaine Cooper Phone 4868 0861

BUSINESS As I mentioned, the current Environmental Levy has been in place since 2008 and Council is now seeking your opinion on options concerning the future funding of environmental works. From July 2012 the Levy will cost the average BUSINESS rate payer $53.50/year which amounts to about $1.03 per week or 1.73% of your rates. It is important to Council that you understand the following proposals, including the potential costs to you into the future. Council has come up with four options for you to choose from. We call them a choice between No Levy, Some Levy, Permanent Levy and Continue Levy For A Time. I will explain these to you now and then repeat them, asking you to choose your preference. Option 1 : No levy . Under this option the 1.73% Environmental Levy would cease in June 2013 and would be removed from your rates. Under this option Council could either: (A) Consider what level of environmental services it could continue to afford at the expense of reducing other council services. For example, some facilities may be closed, opening hours for some services could be reduced and/or less maintenance undertaken OR (B) The Environmental Levy and all environmental projects and activities funded by it would cease. Option 2: Some levy . Under this option, from July 2013 a new 0.93% Environmental Levy is charged. The new levy would be 46.5% lower than the current environmental levy and may mean community environmental events, revegetation projects, weed management, private landholder programs or sustainability initiatives would have to be reduced under this option. Under this option a reduced level of environmental services would mean the average BUSINESS rate payer would be charged $29.48 /year or 57 cents per week instead of $1.06 per week. Option 3: Permanent levy . Under this option, Council permanently collects the 1.73% Environmental Levy, effectively becoming part of the annual rates charge but itemised separately on your bill. For example from July 2012 the levy would cost the average BUSINESS rate payer $53.50/year which amounts to about $1.03 per week. Long term environmental works and initiatives could be planned and carried out, ensuring the shire maintains, protects and enhances its distinct and diverse natural environment. Levy projects and spending would be documented each year in Council’s annual report. Option 4 : Continue Levy For A Time . Under this option, the 1.73% Environmental Levy would be continued, not permanently, but for a fixed period of time . As in option 3, from July 2012 the levy would cost the average BUSINESS rate payer $53.50/year which amounts to about $1.03 cents per week. For a fixed time environmental works and initiatives could be planned and carried out, ensuring the shire maintains, protects and enhances its distinct and diverse natural environment. Levy related projects and spending on works would be documented each year in Council’s annual report. I’ll now summarise the options so you can make your selection.



Q8


Q9

Option 3: Permanent levy . Council continues to permanently collect the 1.73% Environmental Levy at the current rate.

Q9

Option 4: Continue Levy For A Time . The 1.73% Environmental Levy would be continued at the current rate, not permanently, but for a fixed period of time.

Q9

FARMLAND As I mentioned, the current Environmental Levy has been in place since 2008 and Council is now seeking your opinion on options concerning the future funding of environmental works. From July 2012 the Levy will cost the average FARMLAND rate payer $105.47/year which amounts to about $2.03 per week or 3.96% of your rates. It is important to Council that you understand the following proposals, including the potential costs to you into the future. Council has come up with four options for you to choose from. We call them a choice between No Levy, Some Levy, Permanent Levy and Continue Levy For A Time. I will explain these to you now and then repeat them, asking you to choose your preference. Option 1 : No levy . Under this option the 3.96% Environmental Levy would cease in June 2013 and would be removed from your rates. Under this option Council could either: (A) Consider what level of environmental services it could continue to afford at the expense of reducing other council services. For example, some facilities may be closed, opening hours for some services could be reduced and/or less maintenance undertaken OR (B) The Environmental Levy and all environmental projects and activities funded by it would cease. Option 2: Some levy . Under this option, from July 2013 a new 2.16% Environmental Levy is charged. The new levy would be 46.5% lower than the current environmental levy and may mean community environmental events, revegetation projects, weed management, private landholder programs or sustainability initiatives would have to be reduced under this option. Under this option a reduced level of environmental services would mean the average FARMLAND rate payer would be charged $58.10 /year or $1.12 per week instead of $2.09 per week. Option 3: Permanent levy . Under this option, Council permanently collects the 3.96% Environmental Levy, effectively becoming part of the annual rates charge but itemised separately on your bill. For example from July 2012 the levy would cost the average FARMLAND rate payer $105.47/year which amounts to about $2.03 per week. Long term environmental works and initiatives could be planned and carried out, ensuring the shire maintains, protects and enhances its distinct and diverse natural environment. Levy projects and spending would be documented each year in Council’s annual report. Option 4 : Continue Levy For A Time . Under this option, the 3.96% Environmental Levy would be continued, not permanently, but for a fixed period of time . As in option 3, from July 2012 the levy would cost the average FARMLAND rate payer $105.47/year which amounts to about $2.03 cents per week. For a fixed time environmental works and initiatives could be planned and carried out, ensuring the shire maintains, protects and enhances its distinct and diverse natural environment. Levy related projects and spending on works would be documented each year in Council’s annual report. I’ll now summarise the options so you can make your selection.



Q8


Q9

Option 3: Permanent levy . Council continues to permanently collect the 3.96% Environmental Levy at the current rate.

Q9

Option 4: Continue Levy For A Time . The 3.96% Environmental Levy would be continued at the current rate, not permanently, but for a fixed period of time.

Q9

SHIRE COUNCIL

Artwork by Sarah Clegg. St Michaels School, Mittagong

January 2012Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29 30 31

SHIRE COUNCIL

New Year’s Day Additional Day

Australia Day

Artwork by Andrew Bova. St Michaels School, Mittagong

February 2012Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29

SHIRE COUNCIL

World Wetlands Day

Artwork by Taylor Jones. St Michaels School, Mittagong

March 2012Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 26 27 28 29 30 31

SHIRE COUNCIL

Schools Clean Up Day

Clean Up Australia Day

World Water Day

Artwork by Katerina Kaczor. St Michaels School, Mittagong

April 2012Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29 30

SHIRE COUNCIL

Earth Day

Good Friday Easter Saturday

Easter Sunday Easter Monday

Anzac Day

Artwork by Tim Ryan. St Michaels School, Mittagong

May 2012Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28 29 30 31

SHIRE COUNCIL

Artwork by Francesca Morrison. St Michaels School, Mittagong

June 2012Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23

24 25 26 27 28 29 30

SHIRE COUNCIL

World Environment Day

Queen’s Birthday

Artwork by Lucy Gabor. St Michaels School, Mittagong

July 2012Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29 30 31

SHIRE COUNCIL

Artwork by Honey Healy-Green. St Michaels School, Mittagong

August 2012Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30 31

SHIRE COUNCIL

Bank Holiday ***

Artwork by Amanda Grieco. St Michaels School, Mittagong

September 2012Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30

SHIRE COUNCIL

Threatened Species Day

Sustainable House Day

Artwork by Jasper Mevissen. St Michaels School, Mittagong

October 2012Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30 31

SHIRE COUNCIL

World Animal Day Labour Day

Artwork by Maddie Kerr. St Michaels School, Mittagong

November 2012Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 26 27 28 29 30

SHIRE COUNCIL

World Fisheries Day

Artwork by Peter Kasseroler. St Michaels School, Mittagong

December 2012Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30 31

SHIRE COUNCIL

Christmas Day Boxing Day

SHIRE COUNCIL

Wingecarribee Council

2007 Environmental Management Survey

Management Report DRAFT REPORT

Prepared for

Prepared by IRIS Research Ltd

September 2007

IRIS Research ABN 16 002 278 793 Porter Street Annex, The University of Wollongong, 22 Porter Street, Nth Wollongong

Postal address: Northfields Ave, Wollongong. NSW 2522 Telephone: (02) 4229 4777 Fax: (02)4227 2987 Net: http://www.iris.org.au Email: [email protected]

I n s i g h t f o r B u s i n e s s & G o v e r n m e n t

Wingecarribee Council Environmental Management Survey – Draft Report i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... III

1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1

1.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 STUDY OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 ATTITUDE MEASUREMENT .................................................................................................................. 2

1.4 DATA ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................. 2

1.5 SURVEY RESPONSE........................................................................................................................... 4

SURVEY RESULTS .......................................................................................................... 5

2 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OF CONCERN.............................................................. 6

2.1 IMPORTANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES .................................................................................................. 6

3 AWARENESS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES........................................................... 7

3.1 PROBLEM ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES..................................................................................................... 7

3.2 COUNCIL INVOLVEMENT .................................................................................................................. 9

3.3 SATISFACTION WITH COUNCIL PERFORMANCE .................................................................................. 10

4 COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO THE ENVIRONMENT ............................................... 12

4.1 COMMUNITY ATTITUDES ................................................................................................................. 12

4.2 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION .......................................................................................................... 14

5 AWARENESS OF ENVIRONMENTAL LEVY AND RELATED PROJECTS.................. 16

5.1 AWARENESS OF ENVIRONMENTAL LEVY............................................................................................ 16

5.2 AWARENESS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS .................................................................................... 17

6 AWARENESS OF COUNCIL’S ROLE & PERCEIVED PERFORMANCE.................... 18

6.1 OVERALL PERFORMANCE............................................................................................................... 18

Wingecarribee Council Environmental Management Survey – Draft Report ii

6.2 ISSUES INFLUENCING OVERALL SATISFACTION RATINGS ...................................................................... 20

6.3 OVERALL STATE OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT............................................................................... 22

APPENDIX 1: SURVEY METHODOLOGY ................................................................ 24

SAMPLE DESIGN ...................................................................................................................................... 24

DATA COLLECTION .................................................................................................................................. 25

RESPONSE ............................................................................................................................................... 25

WEIGHTING ADJUSTMENT.......................................................................................................................... 26

SURVEY ACCURACY................................................................................................................................. 26

APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE .............................................................................. 27

Wingecarribee Council Environmental Management Survey – Draft Report iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

IRIS Research was commissioned by Wingecarribee Council to conduct this study with the

intention of identifying key environmental issues that the local area faces. The broad goal of

the study was to determine how the community believes that funding from the environmental

levy should be ultilised, and to gauge the level of satisfaction with Council’s recent efforts to

protect and improve the natural environment.

A total of 312 completed interviews were collected from a random sample of residents from

throughout the Wingecarribee local government area. Strict sampling procedures ensured

that characteristics of selected respondents mirrored those of the overall adult population of

the area (based on Census data).

Important Environmental Issues

§ When asked to identify the most important environmental issue facing the

Wingecarribee area, nearly half of respondents indicated that they were concerned

about water supply (43.7%).

§ Overdevelopment/ overcrowding was the second most mentioned issues at 18.7%,

while the protection/ clearing of trees and bushland was third at 10.4%.

Awareness of Environmental Issues

§ Overdevelopment/ overcrowding and noxious weeds were clearly identified as the 2

biggest environmental problems in the Wingecarribee area. With a mean score of 6.3

out of 10, just over half of survey respondents believed that overdevelopment and

overcrowding were a problem. 45.8% of respondents indicated that noxious weeds

were a problem, with a mean score of 6.2.

§ Air pollution fell far behind other issues in terms of being a problem in the region. Only

12.7% of those surveyed identified it as a problem, resulting in a low mean score of 3.3

out of 10.

Wingecarribee Council Environmental Management Survey – Draft Report iv

§ At least 9 in every 10 respondents believed that Council should be involved in waste

management, recycling and reuse of resources (97.1%), the maintenance of public

reserves and natural bush areas (95.2%), the controlling of water pollution (93.4%) and

the removal of noxious weeds (93.3%).

§ Wingecarribee residents gave the Council’s performance in addressing waste

management, recycling and reuse of resources the highest satisfaction rating out of

the list of environmental issues. 56.9% of respondents indicated a high level of

satisfaction, resulting in a moderate mean score of 6.5 out of 10.

§ While overdevelopment/ overcrowding and noxious weeds are considered the biggest

problems facing Wingecarribee, the Council’s handling of these issues were given the

lowest satisfaction ratings (4.4 and 4.5 out of 10 respectively).

Community Attitudes to the Environment

§ The results of the attitude measurements indicate that Wingecarribee residents are

fairly environmentally conscious. 86.4% feel obliged to do things that help the

environment, while 82.0% believe that the community has a major role to play in

conserving the natural environment.

§ While two thirds of survey respondents believe that it is the Council’s responsibility to

improve the environment, only 38.5% felt informed about what Council was actually

doing in this regard.

§ While only 10% of respondents indicated that they were actively involved in any

environmental or landcare type organization, 29% have participated in an

environmental program or organized community clean-up initiative in the past 18

months.

§ 39% of those surveyed indicated that they are likely to participate in an environmental

program or organized community clean-up initiative in the next 12 months, while

another 19% suggested they might.

Wingecarribee Council Environmental Management Survey – Draft Report v

Awareness of the Environmental Levy & Related Projects

§ 52% of surveyed respondents were aware of the Environmental Levy.

§ The environmental projects undertaken by Council that local residents are most familiar

with include supporting the work of volunteer landcare and bushcare groups, the

targeting of illegal rubbish dumping, bush regeneration, and the control of noxious

weeds.

Awareness of Council’s Role & Perceived Performance

§ 33.7% of survey respondents indicated that they were highly satisfied with Council’s

overall performance in managing the local environment, resulting in a fairly neutral

mean score of 5.6 out of 10.

§ Just over half of local residents surveyed indicated a high level of satisfaction with the

current state of the natural environment in the Wingecarribee area, resulting in a

moderate mean score of 6.4.

Wingecarribee Council Environmental Management Survey – Draft Report 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

This study was commissioned by Wingecarribee Council with the intention of identifying

key environmental issues that the local area faces. The broad goal of the study was to

determine how the community believes that funding from the environmental levy should

be ultilised, and to gauge the level of satisfaction with Council’s recent efforts to protect

and improvement the natural environment.

1.2 STUDY OBJECTIVES

The specific objectives for the Community Survey were to:

Ø Identify the key environmental issues for urban and rural communities;

Ø Understand the community’s awareness of the programs that the

environmental levy has assisted;

Ø Determine the key areas that the Wingecarribee community would

prefer the environmental levy to be allocated;

Ø Determine the community’s satisfaction with the overall performance of

Council in addressing the environmental issues facing the region; and

Ø Determine the community’s satisfaction with the current state of the

natural environment in Wingecarribee.


1.3 ATTITUDE MEASUREMENT

The three separate attitude scales used in this survey are shown below: they are used by

survey respondents to rate problem, satisfaction and agreement. Results from these

ratings form the basis of much of the analysis in this report.

Problem scale Satisfaction scale Agreement Scale 0 = Not at all a problem 0 = Very dissatisfied 1 = Strongly disagree 1 … 1 … 2… 2 … 2 … 3… 3 … 3 … 4… 4 … 4 … 5 = Strongly agree 5 … 5 … 6 … 6 … 7 … 7 … 8 … 8 … 9 … 9 … 10 = Major problem 10 = Very satisfied

For all rating scales, those respondents who could not provide a rating, either because

the question did not apply to them or they had no opinion, were coded as a non-

response (i.e. 11 = ‘Can’t say’).

1.4 DATA ANALYSIS

Results have been presented in a standardised way in this report. Rating scale results

have generally been presented in two basic forms. Firstly, the numeric values recorded

for each issue have been converted into an overall mean score out of ten for the

problem and satisfaction scales, and out of five for the agreement scale. To derive the

mean score for an attribute, all respondents' answers are 'averaged' to produce an

overall rating that conveniently expresses the result of scale items in a single numeric

figure. The mean score makes data interpretation considerably easier when comparing

multiple issues.

On the whole, a mean score is a good measure of the overall agreement, problem,

satisfaction or priorities measured in the sample group. However, two issues with the

same mean score could have vastly different dispersions of opinion, leading to a gap in


any interpretation of results. This potential problem can be avoided by considering the

collapsed frequency distribution tables presented in this report, which serve to highlight

possible differences between seemingly similar mean scores. Hence, in this report the

results have also been summarised into collapsed frequency distributions as shown in the

table below.

Table 1-1 Reporting collapsed frequency distributions

Scale values

Scale type 0-3 4-6 7-10

Problem Low Medium High

Satisfaction Low Medium High

Scale values

Scale type 1-2 3 4-5

Agreement Disagree Neutral Agree

Analysis of the survey results was carried out by IRIS using SPSS statistical analysis software.

Frequency counts, cross tabulations and charts have been used to present basic

descriptive results in most sections of the report. Other statistical procedures were used to

conduct significance tests. Where proportions have been reported for groups of

respondents (e.g. males 65% vs. females 75%) Pearson’s Chi-Square was the test statistic

used to determine whether group results were indeed significantly different. When

comparing mean scores for interval data (e.g. 16-24yrs = 5.4, 25-34 = 5.6, 35-54 = 5.8 &

55+ = 5.7) analysis of variance (ANOVA) was the primary statistical test used to

investigate whether results were significantly different. Where more than two groups

were being compared, post-hoc tests were applied: Bonferroni (equal variance

assumed) and Games-Howel (equal variance not assumed). Post-hoc tests highlight

exactly which groups have differing results where more than two groups are being

compared.


1.5 SURVEY RESPONSE

A total of 312 completed interviews were collected from a random sample of residents

from throughout the Wingecarribee local government area. Strict sampling procedures

ensured that characteristics of selected respondents mirrored those of the overall adult

population of the area (based on Census data). Table 1-3 provides an overview of the

distribution of key respondent characteristics.

Table 1-2 Sample Respondent Characteristics

Proportion of Sex (%)

Characteristic Male Female Overall

Age Group

16-24yrs 6.7 7.7 14.4

25-34yrs 5.4 7.1 12.5

35-54yrs 19.6 20.2 39.7

55+ yrs 16.3 17.0 33.3

Please refer to Appendix 1 for a detailed description of the survey methodology.


SURVEY RESULTS


2 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OF CONCERN

2.1 IMPORTANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Often the most deeply insightful responses to any community survey are those where the

respondent is free to raise the issues they feel are most important about the area they live

in. In an effort to get a “finger on the pulse” of the key issues for residents, survey

respondents were asked to nominate a major environmental issue facing the

Wingecarribee area. Respondents were afforded the opportunity to mention up to three

separate issues. Table 2-1 provides a summary of the issue themes to emerge.

Table 2-1 Major environmental issues facing Wingecarribee Council area

MAJOR ISSUE % OF SAMPLE

Water supply 43.7

Development/ Over-development 18.7

Protection/clearing of trees & bush land 10.4

Rubbish/ Waste management 8.9

Care/pollution of waterways 8.4

Pollution 6.1

Sewerage 3.8

Road conditions 3.8

Recycling/ Green waste 3.7

Bushfire protection/ Burning off 3.6

Preserve rural atmosphere 3.1

Energy consumption 3.0

Weeds 2.8

Public transport 2.6

Parks 2.5

Town planning/ Town appearance 2.1

Flooding/ Storm water drainage 1.8

Noise pollution 1.4

Traffic 1.3

Global warming 1.1

Feral animals 1.1

Protection of wildlife 0.9

Other 9.8

Non response 18.3

Note: Multiple responses allowed.


3 AWARENESS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

3.1 PROBLEM ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Now I am going to read out a list of broad environmental issues.

For each issue I want to get your opinion about whether or not is a problem in the Wingecarribee area. Use a scale from 0-10, where a rating of 0 means you think the issue

is “not a problem at all” and 10 means it is a “major problem” in your area.

Table 3-1 Composite Importance Ratings for Key Service Areas

Importance Rating (%)

Environmental Issue (rank order) NR Low (0-3)

Medium (4-6)

High (7-10)

Mean Score

(out of 10)

Over-development/ Over crowding 1.6 18.4 27.8 52.2 6.3

Noxious weeds 6.1 15.1 32.9 45.8 6.2

Energy used in homes and businesses 4.9 21.7 38.9 34.4 5.4

Creek management 12.8 20.5 34.7 31.9 5.4

Maintenance of public reserves and natural bush areas

1.5 28.6 35.8 34.1 5.2

Sustainable living 5.6 23.5 41.3 29.5 5.2

Impacts of global warming 7.6 26.7 34.7 30.9 5.1

Threat to wildlife and biodiversity 4.2 28.4 39.3 28.1 5.0

Obstruction of rural views and vistas 2.3 39.5 31.6 26.6 4.5

Waste management, recycling, reuse of resources

0.4 43.7 29.9 26.1 4.5

Water pollution 5.7 38.0 35.5 20.7 4.4

Water Supply 3.1 46.9 25.1 24.9 4.2

Air pollution 0.8 61.2 25.3 12.7 3.3


Key Results:

§ Overdevelopment/ overcrowding and noxious weeds were clearly identified as the 2

biggest environmental problems in the Wingecarribee area. With a mean score of 6.3

out of 10, just over half of survey respondents believed that overdevelopment and

overcrowding were a problem. 45.8% of respondents indicated that noxious weeds

were a problem, with a mean score of 6.2.

§ Air pollution fell far behind other issues in terms of being a problem in the region. Only

12.7% of those surveyed identified it as a problem, resulting in a low mean score of 3.3

out of 10.

§ ANOVA testing revealed that females were statistically more likely to consider air

pollution, threats to wildlife and biodiversity, overdevelopment/ overcrowding, global

warming and energy consumption as environmental problems.

§ Persons aged 35-54 years were statistically more likely to believe that water pollution,

energy consumption and the maintenance of public reserves and natural bush areas

were environmental problems facing the region than were older respondents aged

55 years and over. Youth were also less likely to rate the maintenance of public

reserves and natural bush areas as a problem than 35-54 year olds, as well as

regarding noxious weeds as less of a problem.


3.2 COUNCIL INVOLVEMENT

Now I am going go through the same list and I want you to:

First, tell me whether you think that Council should be involved in addressing that issue.

Table 3-2 NEED FOR COUNCIL INVOLVEMENT IN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Issue Number Percent

Waste management, recycling, reuse of resources 303 97.1%

Maintenance of public reserves and natural bush areas 297 95.2%

Controlling water pollution 291 93.4%

Removal of noxious weeds 291 93.3%

Controlling over-development/ Over crowding 280 89.7%

Managing water Supply 279 89.5%

Preservation of rural views and vistas 276 88.5%

Creek maintenance 276 88.3%

Encouraging sustainable living 257 82.2%

Protecting wildlife and biodiversity 254 81.5%

Encouraging reduced energy used in homes and businesses 252 80.8%

Controlling air pollution 220 70.5%

Impacts of global warming 163 52.1%

Key Results:

§ At least 9 in every 10 respondents believed that Council should be involved in waste

management, recycling and reuse of resources (97.1%), the maintenance of public

reserves and natural bush areas (95.2%), the controlling of water pollution (93.4%) and

the removal of noxious weeds (93.3%).


3.3 SATISFACTION WITH COUNCIL PERFORMANCE

Could you tell me your perception of Council’s performance in assessing each of these issues. Again, use a scale from 0-10, where a rating of 0 means you are “very dissatisfied” and 10 means you are “very satisfied” with Council’s performance in this area.

Table 3-3 Composite Satisfaction Ratings for Council Performance with Environmental Issues

Satisfaction Rating (%)


Medium (4-6)

High (7-10)

Mean Score

(out of 10)

Waste management, recycling, reuse of resources 2.2 13.1 27.8 56.9 6.5

Managing water Supply 5.7 12.8 36.7 44.8 6.0

Controlling air pollution 9.5 11.1 45.8 33.6 5.9

Controlling water pollution 8.1 11.4 46.8 33.7 5.7

Protecting wildlife and biodiversity 6.9 11.5 49.4 32.1 5.7

Maintenance of public reserves and natural bush areas

3.8 20.1 45.7 30.4 5.3

Creek maintenance 9.2 19.9 49.2 21.7 5.1

Impacts of global warming 16.1 13.1 55.7 15.1 5.0

Preservation of rural views and vistas 5.8 25.7 44.3 24.1 4.9

Encouraging reduced energy used in homes and businesses

7.3 24.2 48.7 19.8 4.9

Encouraging sustainable living 5.5 26.4 50.5 17.6 4.6

Removal of noxious weeds 6.0 30.0 44.0 20.0 4.5

Controlling over-development/ Over crowding 1.5 37.0 39.1 22.4 4.4


Key Results:

§ Wingecarribee residents gave the Council’s performance in addressing waste

management, recycling and reuse of resources the highest satisfaction rating out of

the list of environmental issues. 56.9% of respondents indicated a high level of

satisfaction, resulting in a moderate mean score of 6.5 out of 10.

§ While overdevelopment/ overcrowding and noxious weeds are considered the

biggest problems facing Wingecarribee, the Council’s handling of these issues were

given the lowest satisfaction ratings (4.4 and 4.5 out of 10 respectively).

§ ANOVA testing indicated that males have a tendency to be more satisfied with

Council’s performance in dealing with environmental issues, particularly in regards to

water supply and air pollution.

§ The only statistically significant variations in satisfaction based on age were that

residents in the 55 years and over age bracket were more highly satisfied with how

Council was controlling air pollution, as well as waste management, recycling and

the reuse of resources.


4 COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO THE ENVIRONMENT

4.1 COMMUNITY ATTITUDES

I am going to read out a number of statements and would like you to tell me whether you agree or disagree. I would like you to use a scale from 1-5, where a rating of 1 means “strongly agree” and 5 means “strongly disagree”.

Table 4-1 Composite Community Attitude Ratings

Attitude Rating (%)


Medium (3)

High (4-5)

Mean Score

(out of 5)

I feel obliged to do things to help the environment

0.4 3.6 9.6 86.4 4.4

The community should play a major role in managing the natural environment

0.8 4.2 13.0 82.0 4.3

Council’s policies in relation to things like transport, urban development and planning should be encouraging sustainable living practices

1.3 11.1 18.2 69.3 4.0

It is Council’s responsibility to maintain and improve the environment 0.4 13.2 20.9 65.5 3.9

Council works with the community on dealing with environmental and waste issues

1.5 14.7 18.0 65.8 3.8

I feel informed on what Council is doing for the environment

2.4 33.2 25.9 38.5 3.1

Key Results:

§ The results of the above attitude measurements indicate that Wingecarribee

residents are fairly environmentally conscious. 86.4% feel obliged to do things that

help the environment, while 82.0% believe that the community has a major role to

play in conserving the natural environment.


§ While two thirds of survey respondents believe that it is the Council’s responsibility to

improve the environment, only 38.5% felt informed about what Council was actually

doing in this regard.

§ The results of ANOVA testing revealed that females were statistically more likely to

agree that it was Council’s responsibility to improve the environment and that they

felt obliged to do things to help the environment.

§ ANOVA testing also indicated that the region’s youth feel less obliged to actively

help the environment, and less informed about Council’s environmental initiatives.


4.2 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

Are you an active member of any environmental or landcare type organisation?

Figure 4-2 Distribution of Overall Satisfaction Ratings

Yes10%

No90%

In the past 12 to 18 months have you participated in an environmental program or organised community clean-up initiative?


Yes29%

No71%


Are you likely to participate in environmental programs or a community clean-up initiative in the next 12 months?


Yes39%

No42%

Maybe19%


5 AWARENESS OF ENVIRONMENTAL LEVY AND RELATED PROJECTS

5.1 AWARENESS OF ENVIRONMENTAL LEVY

Wingecarribee Council has an Environmental Levy that is used to pay for important environmental projects. Are you aware that this levy exists?


Yes52%

No48%


5.2 AWARENESS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS

Are you aware of any of the following environmental projects that are undertaken by Council?


32.4%

33.7%

36.2%

36.9%

37.0%

41.5%

47.7%

48.1%

55.3%

57.6%

66.7%

71.3%

72.1%

74.3%

67.6%

66.3%

63.8%

63.1%

63.0%

58.5%

52.3%

51.9%

44.7%

42.4%

33.3%

28.7%

27.9%

25.7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Preparing an Environmental Management System

Assisting industry to comply w ith the NSW pollution controllegislation

Improved environmental management of local commercial andindustrial operations

Providing incentives for private landow ners to conserveendanagered remnant bush

Conservation of high value bushland in public ow nership

Construction of litter traps on stormw ater pipes flow ing intocreeks

Supporting community education events (eg EnvironmentFair)

Improving sediment and erosion controls on developmentsites

Feral animial control in bushland reserves

Restoration of creek banks and w etlands

Control of environmental and nxious weeds

Bush regeneration in bushland reserves

Targeting of illegal dumpers supported by the Regional IllegalDumping Squad

Support w ork of the volunteer landcare and bushcare groups

Yes No

Key Results:

§ The environmental projects undertaken by Council that local residents are most

familiar with include supporting the work of volunteer landcare and bushcare groups,

targeting illegal rubbish dumping, bush regeneration, and the control of noxious

weeds.


6 AWARENESS OF COUNCIL’S ROLE & PERCEIVED

PERFORMANCE

6.1 OVERALL PERFORMANCE

To gauge the overall performance of Council in preserving and improving the natural

environment, survey respondents were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with

Council’s overall performance in managing the local environment during the 12 month

period preceding the survey.

The results for this question are displayed in Figure 6-1, which shows the distribution of

responses on the 11-point scale.


4.3%

1.4%3.3%

2.1%

8.0%

29.6%

15.2%

19.4%

9.7%

2.6% 2.1% 2.4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

0

Very

dissatisfied

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Very

satisfied

Can't

Say


Table 6-1 Composite Satisfaction Ratings for Overall Council Performance


NR Low (0-3)

Medium (4-6)

High (7-10)

Mean Score

(out of 10)

Overall Performance 2.4 11.0 52.8 33.7 5.6

Key Results:

§ 33.7% of survey respondents indicated that they were highly satisfied with Council’s

overall performance in managing the local environment, resulting in a fairly neutral

mean score of 5.6 out of 10.

§ Nearly two thirds of those surveyed gave a score of between 5 and 7 out of 10 for this

question.

§ ANOVA testing indicated that residents aged 16-24 years old were statistically

significantly more likely to give a higher satisfaction rating for Council’s performance.


6.2 ISSUES INFLUENCING OVERALL SATISFACTION RATINGS

In an effort to drill down to key issues influencing their overall satisfaction rating,

respondents then were asked this follow-up question:

In giving your rating, has any issue strongly influenced your view, either in a positive or

negative way? If yes, what was the main issue?

Table 6-2 Positive or Negative Influences on Satisfaction Rating

Main reason Number Percent

Yes: positive 55 17.5%

Yes: negative 103 33.1%

No 154 49.4%

For the 312 respondents who stated that there was an issue, interviewers probed for

detail about the specific issue of concern. Figure 6-2 provides a list of respondent

comments.


Figure 6-2 Underlying Positive & Negative Influencers

What issue

influenced your

rating most?

NEGATIVE INFLUENCERS

Description % of

sample

Yes: negative 33.1

Development/ Over-development 16.1

Rubbish collection & maintenance 12.9

Pollution/ Upkeep of waterways 8.8

Council needs to do more 4.7

Tree clearing 4.6

Road maintenance/ management 4.5

Lack of environmental concern/ management 4.5

Not aware of Council initiatives 3.6

Green waste 3.5

Lack of funding/ investment in environment 3.5

Weed control 3.3

Maintenance of footpaths/ walking tracks 3.2

Water supply 3.0

Sewerage 2.9

Recycling 1.9

Maintenance of parks/ bushland/ reserves 1.7

Council doing well given their resources 0.8

Other 16.7

POSITIVE INFLUENCERS

Description % of

sample

Yes: positive 17.5

Protection/ regeneration of environment

14.9

Aware of Council initiatives 12.9

Council doing well given their resources

9.7

Council improving 8.9

Pollution/ Upkeep of waterways

8.2

Communication with residents

7.5

Maintenance of parks/ bushland/ reserves

7.1

Appearance/ maintenance of local area

5.3

Recycling 4.0

Rubbish collection & maintenance

3.1

Green waste 1.7

Tree clearing 1.7

Development/ Over-development

1.6

Other 11.8

Non response 1.6


6.3 OVERALL STATE OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

How satisfied are you with the overall state of the natural environment in the Wingecarribee area? Again, use a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 mean “very dissatisfied” and 10 mean “very

satisfied”.


1.7%0.4% 1.0% 1.5%

4.8%

21.8%

15.7%

25.3%

17.3%

5.1% 4.6%

0.9%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

0

Very

dissatisfied

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Very

satisfied

Can't

Say

Table 6-3 Composite Satisfaction Ratings for the Overall State of the Natural Environment


NR Low (0-3)

Medium (4-6)

High (7-10)

Mean Score

(out of 10)

Overall state of natural environment 0.9 4.7 42.2 52.2 6.4


Key Results:

§ Just over half of local residents surveyed indicated a high level of satisfaction with the

current state of the natural environment in the Wingecarribee area, resulting in a

moderate mean score of 6.4.

§ 80% of respondents gave a satisfaction rating of between 5 and 8 out of 10.

§ There were no statistically significant variations based on demographic factors in relation

to this question.


APPENDIX 1: Survey Methodology

SAMPLE DESIGN

A telephone-based survey aiming to secure a response from approximately 300 residents from

throughout the Wingecarribee LGA was used. The survey unit was permanent residents of the

Wingecarribee area who were aged 16 years or older. The 2006 Census was used to establish

quotas to ensure a good distribution of response by age and sex.

The sample base for the survey was the electronic White Pages. This sample is known to be sub

optimal, as the churn of telephone numbers due to people moving and new numbers being

added as dwellings are occupied affects about 12% to 15% of possible numbers. Furthermore,

from previous research we know that the proportion of silent numbers is increasing and can be

as high as 25-30% in some areas. To deal with these issues, IRIS uses a technique that starts with

the population of numbers listed in the telephone book and adds new and unlisted numbers

using the ‘half open’ method. In this method, all numbers were incremented by five to create

new numbers in the ‘gaps’ between the listed numbers. The resultant universe of numbers was

then de-duplicated to remove any numbers that may be repeated. This process was replicated

five times to create a new theoretical universe of telephone numbers. This provided the

opportunity for all potential numbers to be selected in the sample. This equal and known

opportunity for selection is the first criterion of good random sampling.

Once the potential universe of numbers had been generated, a computer program was used

to randomise the database. Following this, a sequential sample (eg. every 110th number) was

extracted from the database. The sample was geographically stratified and evenly distributed

within strata. This process gave a very even distribution of potential numbers across the whole

survey area and within the three survey sub areas. Every household therefore had an equal

and known chance of selection and every part of the survey area received a fair proportional

representation in the final sample drawn.


DATA COLLECTION

Interviews were conducted on weekday evenings between 4.30 p.m. and 8.30 p.m.

Unanswered numbers were retried three times throughout the period of the survey, and call

backs organized for participants that were unable to complete the survey at the time of first

contact. These procedures ensure a good sampling process from the sample frame used.

Following the close of the main survey period, additional interviews were conducted,

according to need, in those age groups that were under represented. During this part of the

sampling process, a quota sampling procedure was employed to ensure that adequate

numbers in all age groups were selected for interview. This eliminated the need for heavily

weighting the survey data. Non-private numbers and faxes reached during the selection

process were excluded from the sample. The survey was implemented under IQCA quality

guidelines. Interviews were conducted using our computer-aided telephone interviewing (CATI)

system. Continuous interviewer monitoring was used and post interview validations were

conducted within five days of the close of the survey.

RESPONSE

At the end of the survey period, 312 completed interviews had been collected. Table 0-1 shows

that a completion rate of 59% was achieved.

Table 0-1 Survey Response Outcomes

Response sequence Outcome

Completed Interviews 312

Refusals & terminated interviews 220

Valid contacts (Excludes disqualified – businesses, out of area, under 16yrs etc) 532

Completion rate 59%

Given the level of response to the survey and the fact that it represents a good random cross-

section of the area the findings presented in this report provide a good basis for gauging

community opinion.


WEIGHTING ADJUSTMENT

The final results have been weighted by the age and sex distribution of the population, as this

provides the most accurate reflection of overall resident opinions. Table 0-2 shows the

weighting factor applied to the final data and its effect on the distribution of the sample across

sub-groups.

Table 0-2 Weights applied to final data

2001 Census Adult

Population Sample Achieved Overall Final Weighted

Sample

Male Female Total Male Female Total Weighted Factors Male Female Total

(No.) (No.) (%) (No.) (No.) (%) Male Female (No.) (No.) (%)

16-24 2,000 1,939 12.0% 21 24 14.4% 0.9057577 0.7683655 19 18 12.0%

25-34 1,720 1,956 11.2% 17 22 12.5% 0.9622343 0.8455659 16 19 11.2%

35-54 5,531 6,179 35.7% 61 63 39.7% 0.8623333 0.9327794 53 59 35.7%

55+ 6,265 7,216 41.1% 51 53 33.3% 1.1682942 1.2948575 60 69 41.1%

Total 15,516 17,290 100.0% 150 162 100.0% 0.9057577 0.7683655 148 164 100.0%

1. Final sample was 312. 2. Weighting is based on age and geographic distribution of population, as recorded in the 2006 Census.

The proportions and frequency counts in this report are based on a combination of the above

sex weights and an age weighting. Using weighted results means that, whilst large enough sub-

samples have been achieved to make statistically valid comparisons between sub-groups, all

sub-groups will contribute to the total sample result in proportion to their characteristics.

SURVEY ACCURACY

When analysing results for the entire sample, the maximum error rate will be about ±5.8% at the

95% confidence level, assuming a proportional response of 50%. Put another way, we can be

confident that if the survey were to be repeated there would be a 95% chance that the new

result would lie within ±5.8% of the result achieved in this survey.


APPENDIX 2: Questionnaire

INTRODUCTION

Hello, my name is ...... from IRIS, an independent social research organisation. We are conducting a short survey on behalf of Wingecarribee Council about environmental issues. It will only take about 15 minutes - is now convenient? [ IF NOT, TRY TO SCHEDULE CALLBACK ]

And can I just check that your household is situated in the Wingecarribee local government area? [IF "No", THANK & TERMINATE ]

In starting this interview, I just have to inform you that my supervisor may monitor this call for quality control purposes.

Just to give you some background, the information provided by respondents is completely confidential and will help Council to better understand and meet the diverse needs of its residents.

SECTION 1: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OF CONCERN

Q 1.1 Can you tell me what you think are the most important environmental issues facing your local area?

[ RECORD UP TO THREE RESPONSES ]

1ST MENTIONED: __________________________________________________

2ND MENTIONED: __________________________________________________

3RD MENTIONED: __________________________________________________

SECTION 2: AWARENESS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Now I’m going to read out a list of broad environmental issues.

Q2.1 For each issue I want to get your opinion about whether or not it is a problem in the Wingecarribee area. Use a scale from 0-10, where a rating of 0 means you think the issue is “not at all a problem” and 10 means it is a “major problem” in your area.

[ RANDOMISED BLOCK ]

A. Water supply

B. Water pollution

C. Air pollution

D. Threat to wildlife and biodiversity

E. Noxious weeds

F. Waste management, recycling, reuse of resources

G. Over-development / overcrowding

H. Creek management

I. Maintenance of public reserves and natural bush areas

J. Impacts of global warming

K. Energy use in homes and businesses

L. Sustainable living

M. Views and Vistas


Now I’m going to through the same list and I want you to:

Q2.2 First, tell me whether you think that Council should be involved in addressing that issue.


A. Water supply

B. Water pollution

C. Air pollution


E. Noxious weeds



H. Creek management





M. Views and Vistas

Q2.3 Now can you to tell me your perception of Council’s performance in addressing each issue. Again, use a scale from 0-10, where a rating of 0 means you are “very dissatisfied” with Council’s performance, and a rating of 10 means you are “very satisfied” with Council’s performance in this area.


A. Water supply

B. Water pollution

C. Air pollution


E. Noxious weeds



H. Creek management





M. Views and Vistas


SECTION 3: COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO THE ENVIRONMENT

Q3.1 I am going to read out a number of statements and would like you tell me whether you agree or disagree. I would like you to use a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means strongly disagree and 5 means strongly agree.

[CONFIRM RESPONSE: So you agree/disagree]

1. Strongly disagree

2.

3.

4.

5. Strongly agree

6 Don’t know

A. Council’s policies in relation to things like transport, urban development and planning should be encouraging sustainable living practices

B. It is Council’s responsibility to maintain and improve the environment

C. Council works with the community on dealing with environmental and waste issues.

D. I feel informed on what Council is doing for the environment

E. The community should play a major role in managing the environment

F. I feel a responsibility to do things to help the environment.

Q3.2 Are you an active member of any environmental or landcare type organisation?

1. Yes

2. No

Q3.3 In the past 12-18 months have you participated in an environmental program or organised community clean-up initiative?

1. Yes

2. No

Q3.4 Are you likely to participate in environmental programs or a community clean-up initiative in the next 12 months?

1. Yes

2. Maybe

3. No

SECTION 4: AWARENESS OF ENVIRONMENTAL LEVY & RELATED PROJECTS

Q4.1 Wingecarribee Council has an Environmental Levy that is used to pay for important environmental projects. Were you aware that this levy exist?

1. Yes

2. No


Q4.2 Are you aware of any of the following environmental projects that are undertaken by Council?

A. Feral animal control in bushland reserves

B. Control of environmental and noxious weeds

C. Improving sediment and erosion controls on development sites

D. Restoration of creek banks and wetlands

E. Supporting community education events such as the Environment Fair and World Environment Day

F. Support the work of volunteer landcare and bushcare groups

G. Bush regeneration in bushland reserves

H. Preparing an Environment Management System

I. Targeting of illegal dumpers in the Shire by supporting the Regional Illegal Dumping Squad

J. Improved environmental management of local commercial and industrial operations

K. Assisting industry in the Shire to comply with the NSW pollution control legislation

L. Providing incentives for private landowners wishing to conserve endangered remnant bush on their land

M. Conservation of high value bushland in public ownership

N. Construction of litter traps on stormwater pipes flowing into creeks

SECTION 5: AWARENESS OF COUNCIL’S ROLE & PERCEIVED PERFORMANCE

Council has a role in the preservation and improvement of the natural environment.

Q5.1 How satisfied are you with the overall performance of Council in managing the local environment? Again, use a scale from 0-10, where 0 means “very dissatisfied and 10 means “very satisfied”.


1. Very dissatisfied

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10. Very satisfied

11 Can’t say

Q5.2 In giving your rating, has any particular issue strongly influenced your view, either in a positive or negative way? [IF YES] Was it a positive or negative influence?

1. Yes – Positive

2. Yes - Negative

3. No

Q5.3 Please describe the major issue that strongly influenced your rating.


Q5.4 How satisfied are you with the overall state of the natural environment in the Wingecarribee area? Again, use a scale from 0-10, where 0 means “very dissatisfied and 10 means “very satisfied”.


1. Very dissatisfied

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10. Very satisfied

11 Can’t say

SECTION 6: RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS

Finally, I’d like to ask you a few questions to help qualify your responses.

SEX From the sound of your voice you are…

1. Male

2. Female

3. Refused

AGE Which of the following age brackets do you fall into?

1. 16 to 24

2. 25 to 34

3. 35 to 54

4. 55 and over.

5. Refused.

PC What is your postcode?

NAME And could you please tell me your first name as my supervisor audits 1 in 10 of my calls as part of our quality control process?

CONCLUSION

That completes our interview. As this is market research, you can be assured that it is carried out in full compliance with the Privacy Act and the information you provided is only used for research purposes.

Again, my name is ….and my supervisors name is Judy. If you have any questions about this survey, or would like further information about IRIS Research, you can call our office between 9am and 5pm weekdays on 4229-4777. Thank you for your time.

END.

Community Priorities Research

October 2010

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

ABN 14 003 179 440

10/1 Bounty Close Tuggerah, NSW 2259

Postal address: PO Box 5059, Chittaway Bay NSW 2261

Telephone: (02) 4352 2388 Fax: (02) 4352 2117

www.micromex.com.au

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Wingecarribee Shire Council


October 2010

The information contained herein is believed to be reliable and accurate. However, no guarantee is given as to

its accuracy and reliability, and no responsibility or liability for any information, opinions or commentary

contained herein, or for any consequences of its use, will be accepted by Micromex Research, or by any person

involved in the preparation of this report.



October 2010 Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Background & Methodology ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1

Profile ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Figure 1.1 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Key Findings .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3

Table 1.1.1 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Table 1.1.2 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Table 1.2 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 6

Figure 1.2 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 1.3 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 1.4 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10

Section A .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Detailed Findings ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Overview Of Services/Facilities and Rating Scale ............................................................................................................................................. 11

Table 2.1 .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Importance of and Satisfaction with Council Services ........................................................................................................................................ 13

People ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 13

Figure 2.2.1 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 2.2.2 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16

Table 2.2 .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17

Places ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18

Figure 2.3.1 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18

Figure 2.3.2 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21

Figure 2.3.3 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22

Table 2.3 .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23

Environment................................................................................................................................................................................................. 24

Figure 2.4.1 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24

Figure 2.4.2 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 27

Figure 2.4.3 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28

Table 2.4 .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 29

Leadership and Economy............................................................................................................................................................................... 30

Figure 2.5.1 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 30

Figure 2.5.2 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 32

Table 2.5 .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 33

Overall Satisfaction with the Performance of Council ......................................................................................................................................... 34

Figure 2.6.1 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 34

Comparison with LGA Stated Satisfaction Benchmarks ...................................................................................................................................... 35

Table 2.6 .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 35

How Wingecarribee Council will Improve Satisfaction with Its Performance .......................................................................................................... 36

Figure 2.7.1 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 36

Figure 2.7.2 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 37

Council’s Image Within the Community ........................................................................................................................................................... 38

Figure 2.7.3 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 38




Table of Contents

Section B ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 39

Contact with Council ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 39

Contact with Council in the last 12 months ....................................................................................................................................................... 39

Figure 3.1.1 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 39

Figure 3.1.2 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 39

Figure 3.1.3 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 39

Figure 3.1.4 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 39

Satisfaction with Council’s communication ....................................................................................................................................................... 41

Figure 3.2.1 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 41

Section C..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 42

Priorities for the Local Area ............................................................................................................................................................................ 42

Best Thing About Living in the Wingecarribee Area .......................................................................................................................................... 42

Figure 4.1 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 42

Agreement with Specific Statements ................................................................................................................................................................ 43

Figure 4.2 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 43

Activities Within the Shire .............................................................................................................................................................................. 44

Figure 4.3.1 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 44

Figure 4.3.2 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 44

Figure 4.3.3 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 44

Response Timeliness ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 45

Figure 4.4 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 45

Appendix A ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 46

Demographics ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 46

Table 5.1.1 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 46

Table 5.1.2 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 46

Table 5.1.3 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 46

Table 5.1.4 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 46

Table 5.1.5 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 47

Table 5.1.6 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 47

Table 5.1.7 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 48

Table 5.1.8 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 48

Appendix B ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 49

Data and Correlation Tables .......................................................................................................................................................................... 49

Importance of and Satisfaction with Council Services ........................................................................................................................................ 49

People ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 49

Table 6.1.1 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 49

Table 6.1.2 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 49

Table 6.1.3 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 50

Table 6.1.4 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 50

Places ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 51

Table 6.2.1 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 51

Table 6.2.2 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 52

Table 6.2.3 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 53

Table 6.2.4 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 54




Table of Contents

Environment................................................................................................................................................................................................. 55

Table 6.3.1 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 55

Table 6.3.2 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 55

Table 6.3.3 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 56

Table 6.3.4 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 56

Leadership and Economy............................................................................................................................................................................... 57

Table 6.4.1 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 57

Table 6.4.2 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 57

Table 6.4.3 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 57

Table 6.4.4 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 57

Overall Satisfaction with Council’s Performance ............................................................................................................................................... 58

Table 6.5.1 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 58

Table 6.5.2 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 58

Perception of Council’s image within the community.......................................................................................................................................... 58

Table 6.6.1 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 58

Table 6.6.2 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 58

Contact with Council ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 59

Table 6.7.1 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 59

Table 6.7.2 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 59

Table 6.7.3 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 59

Table 6.7.4 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 60

Table 6.7.5 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 60

Satisfaction with Council’s Communication ...................................................................................................................................................... 60

Table 6.8.1 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 60

Table 6.8.2 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 60

Agreement with Specific Statements ................................................................................................................................................................ 61

Table 6.9.1 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 61

Community Activities ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 62

Table 6.10.1 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 62

Table 6.10.2 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 62

Table 6.10.3 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 62

Table 6.10.4 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 62

Table 6.10.5 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 63

Table 6.10.6 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 63

Response Timeliness ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 64

Table 6.11.1 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 64

Table 6.11.2 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 64



October 2010 1

Background & Methodology

Questionnaire

Micromex Research, together with Wingecarribee Shire Council prepared the questionnaire in October 2010.

A copy of the questionnaire is provided in Appendix C.

Data collection period

The survey was conducted by telephone. The survey was conducted from 4:30pm to 8:30pm over the week

commencing 15th October 2010.

Ratings questions

The Likert Scale of 1 to 5 was used in all rating questions, where 1 was the lowest importance or satisfaction

and 5 the highest importance or satisfaction.

This scale allowed for a mid range position for those who had a divided or neutral opinion.

Within the report, the mean ratings for each of the criteria have been assigned a determined ‘level of

importance or satisfaction’. This determination is based on the following groupings:

Mean rating 1.99 or lower ‘Very low’ level of importance/satisfaction

2.00 – 2.49 ‘Low’ level of importance/satisfaction

2.50 – 2.99 ‘Moderately low’ levels of importance/satisfaction

3.00 – 3.59 ‘Moderate’ level of importance/satisfaction

3.60 – 3.89 ‘Moderately high’ level of importance/satisfaction

3.90 – 4.19 ‘High’ level of importance/satisfaction

4.20 – 4.49 ‘Very high’ level of importance/satisfaction

4.50 + ‘Extremely high’ level of importance/satisfaction

Note: Only respondents who rated services/facilities a 4 or 5 in importance were asked to rate their

satisfaction with that service/facility

Sampling error

A sample size of 400 residents provides a sampling error of +/- 4.9 at 95% confidence.

Errors: Data in this publication is subject to sampling variability because it is based on information relating to a sample

of residents rather than the total number. This difference (sampling error) may occur due to imperfections in

reporting and errors made in processing the data. This may occur in any enumeration, whether it is a full count

or sample.

Efforts have been made to reduce the non-sampling error by careful design of the questionnaire and detailed

checking of completed questionnaires.



October 2010 2

Profile

Sample Profile

The final achieved sample of n=400 robustly covers off all key demographic sub-groups.

This allowed us to undertake some of the analysis at a subgroup level.

Figure 1.1

44%

56%

46%

21%

23%

9%

2%

18%

19%

20%

28%

10%

90%

8%

19%

33%

35%

14%

86%

24%

28%

28%

20%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Male

Female

More than 20 years

11 - 20 years

6 - 10 years

2 - 5 years

Up to 2 years

Single with no children

Married/de facto with children over 12

Married/de facto with children under 12

Married/de facto with no children

Rent the property

Own/buying the property

Household duties

Currently in part time paid employment

Retired from paid employment

Currently in full time paid employment

Overseas

Australia

65+ years and over

50 - 64

35 - 49

18 - 34

86% of residents were born in Australia

35% of residents are involved in full time work, whilst 33% are retired from paid employment

Almost half of the sample (46%) have lived in the Wingecarribee Shire for over 20 years

90% own or are in the process of buying the property they live in

51% of the respondents have children



October 2010 3

Key Findings

The results are generally positive for Wingecarribee Council, with 29 of the 38 services/facilities/criteria rated

as delivering ‘moderate satisfaction’ to ‘very high satisfaction’.

At an overall level, residents are ‘moderately’ satisfied with the performance of Council. The actual overall

satisfaction score is in line with the LGA normative score for this measure.

Identifying Priorities via Specialised Analysis (Explanation)

The specified research outcomes required us to measure both community importance and community

satisfaction with a range of specific service delivery areas. In order to identify core priorities we undertook a 2

step analysis process on the stated importance and rated satisfaction data, after which, we conducted a third

level of analysis. This level of analysis was a Shapley regression in order to identify which facilities and services

are the actual drivers of overall satisfaction with Council.

By examining both approaches to analysis we have been able to:

1. Identify and understand the hierarchy of community priorities

2. Inform the deployment of Council resources in line with community aspirations

Step 1. Performance Gap Analysis (PGA)

PGA establishes the gap between importance and satisfaction. This is calculated by subtracting the mean

satisfaction score from the mean importance score. In order to measure PGA, respondents are asked to rate the

importance of, and their satisfaction with, each of a range of different services or facilities on a scale of 1 to 5,

where 1 = low importance or satisfaction and 5 = high importance or satisfaction. These scores are aggregated

at a total community level.

The higher the differential between importance and satisfaction, the greater the difference is between the

provision of that service by Wingecarribee Council and the expectation of the community for that

service/facility.

In the table on the following page, we can see the 38 services and facilities residents rated, by importance and

then by satisfaction.

When analysing the performance gaps it is important to recognise that, for the most part, a gap of

approximately 1.0 – 1.1 is acceptable, particularly when the initial importance rating is 4.2+, as it indicates

that residents consider the attribute to be of ‘high’ to ‘very high’ importance’ and that the satisfaction they have

with Wingecarribee Council’s performance on that same measure, is ‘moderate’ to ‘moderately high’.

For example, ‘local traffic management’ was given an importance score of 4.33, which indicates that it is

considered a highly important focus area by residents. At the same time it was given a satisfaction score of

3.15, which indicates that residents are moderately satisfied with Wingecarribee Council’s performance and

focus on that measure.

In the case of a performance gap, such as for the ‘festival and events’ (3.73 importance vs. 3.69 satisfaction)

we can identify that the facility is only moderately important to the broader community, but that for residents

who do feel that this facility is important, Wingecarribee Council is perceived to have performed to a

moderately high level of satisfaction.



October 2010 4

Key Findings (Cont’d)

When analysing performance gap data it is important to consider both stated satisfaction and the absolute size

of the performance gap.

Performance Gap Ranking

Table 1.1.1

Ranking Service / Facility Importance

Mean

Satisfaction

Mean

Performance

Gap

1 Condition of local roads 4.53 2.29 2.24

2 Availability of car parking in the town and village centres 4.45 2.44 2.01

3 Support for youth 4.43 2.66 1.77

4 Availability of and access to public transport 4.16 2.57 1.59

5 Managing development and growth 4.37 2.82 1.55

6 The provision and quality of footpaths 4.30 2.77 1.53

7 Green waste collection 3.91 2.48 1.43

8 Enforcement of development and building regulations 4.22 2.88 1.34

9 Support for people with a disability 4.45 3.18 1.27

10 Support for local business and employment 4.42 3.16 1.26

11 Opportunities to participate in Council decision making 4.08 2.83 1.25

12 Local traffic management 4.33 3.15 1.18

13 Community safety/crime prevention 4.56 3.40 1.16

14 Encouraging waste reduction initiatives 4.43 3.28 1.15

15 Council provision of information to residents 4.39 3.25 1.14

16 Providing adequate drainage 4.21 3.12 1.09

17 Support for aged persons 4.49 3.41 1.08

18 Healthy, natural urban streams and creeks but not rivers 4.26 3.25 1.01

19 The cleanliness and functionality of public toilets 4.12 3.16 0.96

20 Encouraging recycling 4.56 3.63 0.93

21 Provision & maintenance of swimming pools 3.95 3.08 0.87

22 Cycle paths and walking tracks 4.14 3.38 0.76

23 Revitalisation/beautification of town and village centres as well as the surrounding areas 3.95 3.21 0.74

24 Support for community environmental initiatives 4.07 3.35 0.72

25 Support for the aboriginal community 3.77 3.12 0.65

26 Provision & maintenance of local parks and gardens 4.28 3.64 0.64

27 Town water quality (taste, smell and colour) 4.50 3.89 0.61

28 Restoration of natural bushland 4.11 3.51 0.60

29 Provision and maintenance of sporting facilities 4.15 3.59 0.56

30 Protecting Heritage values & Buildings 3.96 3.43 0.53

31 Provision and maintenance of playgrounds 4.10 3.60 0.50

32 Provision and maintenance of community halls/facilities 3.99 3.57 0.42

33 Support for tourism 4.07 3.73 0.34

34 Domestic garbage collection 4.51 4.18 0.33

35 The Resource Recovery Centre (RCC/local tip) 4.22 3.90 0.32

36 Dog control 3.88 3.59 0.29

37 Provision and operation of libraries 4.28 4.14 0.14

38 Festivals and events 3.73 3.69 0.04

Mean ratings: 1 = not at all important and very dissatisfied

5 = very important and very satisfied



October 2010 5


When we examine the 11 largest performance gaps, we can identify that all the services or facilities have been

rated as ‘high’ to ‘extremely high’ in importance. Resident satisfaction for 9 out of the 11 areas is less than 3.0,

which indicates that Wingecarribee Council’s perceived performance for these measures is considered to be

less than ‘moderately satisfactory’.

Table 1.1.2

Ranking Service / Facility Importance

Mean

Satisfaction

Mean

Performance

Gap

1 Condition of local roads 4.53 2.29 2.24

2 Availability of car parking in the town and village centres 4.45 2.44 2.01

3 Support for youth 4.43 2.66 1.77

4 Availability of and access to public transport 4.16 2.57 1.59

5 Managing development and growth 4.37 2.82 1.55

6 The provision and quality of footpaths 4.30 2.77 1.53

7 Green waste collection 3.91 2.48 1.43

8 Enforcement of development and building regulations 4.22 2.88 1.34

9 Support for people with a disability 4.45 3.18 1.27

10 Support for local business and employment 4.42 3.16 1.26

11 Opportunities to participate in Council decision making 4.08 2.83 1.25

The key outcomes of this analysis would suggest that, while there are opportunities for improvement in all

areas, ‘condition of local roads’, ‘availability of car parking in the town and village centres’ and ‘support for

youth’ are the areas that require clear focus as they have the lowest levels of resident satisfaction.

Note: Performance gap is the first step in the process, we now need to identify comparative ratings across all

the services and facilities to get an understanding of relative importance and satisfaction at an LGA level.

This is when we undertake step 2 of the analysis.



October 2010 6


Step 2. Quadrant Analysis

Quadrant analysis is a useful tool for planning future directions. It combines the stated needs of the community

and assesses Wingecarribee Council’s performance in relation to these needs.

This analysis is completed by plotting the variables on x and y axes, defined by stated importance and rated

satisfaction. We aggregate the mean scores for stated importance and rated satisfaction to identify where the

facility or service should be plotted. For these criteria, the average stated importance score was 4.22 and the

average rated satisfaction score was 3.27. Therefore, any facility or service that received a mean stated

importance score of ≥ 4.22 would be plotted in the higher importance section and, conversely, any that scored

<4.22 would be plotted into the lower importance section. The same exercise is undertaken with the satisfaction

ratings above or below 3.27. Each service or facility is then plotted in terms of satisfaction and importance,

resulting in its placement in one of four quadrants.

Quadrant Analysis

Table 1.2

Improve Higher importance, lower satisfaction

Maintain Higher importance, higher satisfaction

Condition of local roads Community safety/crime prevention

Availability of car parking in the town and village centres Encouraging waste reduction initiatives

Support for youth Support for aged persons

Managing development and growth Encouraging recycling

The provision and quality of footpaths Provision & maintenance of local parks and gardens

Enforcement of development and building regulations Town water quality (taste, smell and colour)

Support for people with a disability Domestic garbage collection

Support for local business and employment The Resource Recovery Centre (RCC/local tip)

Local traffic management Provision and operation of libraries

Council provision of information to residents

Healthy, natural urban streams and creeks but not rivers

Niche Lower importance, lower satisfaction

Secondary Lower importance, higher satisfaction

Availability of and access to public transport Cycle paths and walking tracks

Green waste collection Support for community environmental initiatives

Opportunities to participate in Council decision making Restoration of natural bushland

Providing adequate drainage Provision and maintenance of sporting facilities

The cleanliness and functionality of public toilets Protecting Heritage values & Buildings

Provision & maintenance of swimming pools Provision and maintenance of playgrounds

Revitalisation/beautification of town and village centres as

well as the surrounding areas Provision and maintenance of community halls/facilities

Support for the aboriginal community Support for tourism

Dog control

Festivals and events

S a t i s f a c t i o n

I

m

p

o

r

t

a

n

c

e



October 2010 7


Explaining the 4 quadrants

Attributes in the top right quadrant, MAINTAIN, such as ‘community safety/crime prevention’, are Council’s

core strengths, and should be treated as such. Maintain, or even attempt to improve your position in these

areas, as they are influential and address clear community needs.

Attributes in the top left quadrant, IMPROVE, such as ‘condition of local roads’, are areas where Council is

perceived to be currently under-performing and are key concerns in the eyes of your residents. In the vast

majority of cases you should aim to improve your performance in these areas to better meet the community’s

expectations.

Attributes in the bottom left quadrant, NICHE, such as ‘availability of and access to public transport’, are of a

relatively low priority (and the word ‘relatively’ should be stressed – they can still be important). These areas

tend to be important to a smaller segment of the community.

Finally, attributes in the bottom right quadrant, SECONDARY, such as ‘cycle paths and walking tracks’ are core

strengths, but in relative terms they are less important than other areas and Council’s servicing in these areas

may already be exceeding expectation. Consideration could be given to rationalising focus in these areas as

they are not community priorities for improvement.

Recommendations based only on stated importance and satisfaction have major limitations, as the actual

questionnaire process essentially ‘silos’ facilities and services as if they are independent variables, when they

are in fact all part of the broader community perception of Council performance.

Residents’ priorities identified in stated importance/satisfaction analysis often tend to be in areas that are

problematic. No matter how much focus a Council dedicates to the ‘road maintenance’ it will always be found

in the IMPROVE quadrant. This is because, perceptually, the condition of local roads can always be better.

Further, the outputs of stated importance and satisfaction address the current dynamics of the community, they

do not predict which focus areas are the most likely agents to change the community’s perception of Council’s

overall performance.

Therefore, in order to identify how Wingecarribee Council can actively drive overall community satisfaction we

conducted further analysis.



October 2010 8


The Shapley Value Regression

We recently finalised the development of a Council Satisfaction Model to identify priorities that will drive overall

satisfaction with Council.

This model was developed by conducting specialised analysis from over 30,000 LGA interviews conducted

since 2005. In essence, it proved that increasing resident satisfaction by actioning the priorities that they stated

as important does not necessarily positively impact on overall satisfaction with Council.

What Does This Mean?

The learning is that if we only rely on the stated community priorities we will not be allocating the appropriate

resources to the actual service attributes that will improve overall community satisfaction. Using regression

analysis we can identify the attributes that essentially build overall satisfaction. We call the outcomes ‘derived

importance’.

Figure 1.2

Correlation Between Stated Importance And Derived Importance Is Low

If you only focus on stated importance you are not focusing on the key drivers

of community satisfaction

Coles

89%

Derived Importance

S

t

a

t

e

d

I

m

p

o

r

t

a

n

c

e

Opportunities to participate in Council decision making

Town water quality (taste, smell and colour)


Support for local business and employment

Support for tourism

Local traffic management

Community safety/crime prevention

Managing development and growth

The cleanliness and functionality of public toilets

Provision and maintenance of playgrounds

Support for youth

Revitalisation/beautification of town and village centres as well as the surrounding

areas

3.8

3.9

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

2.5 4.5 6.5 8.5 10.5 12.5 14.5

In the chart above, on the vertical axis of ‘stated importance’, all the facilities/services fall in relatively close

proximity to each other (i.e. between approximately 3.8 & 4.6). However, on the horizontal axis the attributes

are spread between 2.5 and 12.7. The further an attribute is found to the right of the horizontal axis of

‘derived importance’, the more it contributes in driving overall satisfaction with Council.



October 2010 9


Key Drivers of Satisfaction with Wingecarribee Council

The results in the chart below provide Wingecarribee Council with a complete picture of both the extrinsic and

intrinsic community priorities and motivations, and identifies what attributes are the key drivers of community

satisfaction.

These top 11 services/facilities account for 60% of overall satisfaction with Council. This indicates that the

remaining 27 attributes we obtained measures on have only a limited impact on the community’s satisfaction

with Wingecarribee Council’s performance. Therefore, whilst all 38 service/facility areas are important, only a

minority of them will measurably influence the community’s overall satisfaction with Council.

Figure 1.3

These Top 11 Indicators Account For 60% Of Overall Satisfaction With Council

Wingecarribee Council needs to concentrate on engaging and consulting

with residents, as well as ensuring town water quality

Coles

89%

2.5

2.7

2.8

2.9

3.3

3.4

3.5

5.0

8.5

12.4

12.7

0.00 3.00 6.00 9.00 12.00 15.00

Support for youth






Support for tourism





These 11 services/facilities are the key community priorities and by addressing these Wingecarribee Council

will improve community satisfaction. The score assigned to each area indicates the percentage of influence

each attribute contributes to overall satisfaction with Council. In the above chart, ‘community safety/crime

prevention’ contributes 3.3% towards overall satisfaction.

We can see in this chart that ‘opportunities to participate in Council decision making’, which was in the Niche

quadrant in our analysis of stated importance and rated satisfaction – is actually the number 1 driver of

community satisfaction with Wingecarribee Council.

This indicates that 12.7% of all overall community satisfaction is being driven by the way Council interacts and

informs its residents. Wingecarribee Council needs to ensure that they are proactively focussed on catering to

this need.



October 2010 10


If Wingecarribee Council can address the core drivers, they will be able to improve resident satisfaction with

their performance.

Clarifying Priorities

In the chart below we can see that for many of the core drivers Council is already performing reasonably well.

There are clear opportunities to improve satisfaction with the service facilities that fall below the diagonal line.

Figure 1.4



Council provision of information to residentsSupport for local business and

employment

Support for tourism






Revitalisation/beautification of town and village centres

2.8

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

2.5 4.5 6.5 8.5 10.5 12.5 14.5

Mapping Stated Satisfaction And Derived Importance Identifies The Community Priority Areas

Community consultation and involvement and town water quality are the important

drivers of community satisfaction with Council

Coles

IMPROVE

CONSOLIDATE

Derived Importance

S

t

a

t

e

d

s

a

t

i

s

f

a

c

t

i

o

n

Recommendations

Based on the key findings from this research study it is clear from a resident perspective, that there are

potentially a number of areas that require action or at least more salient communication or community

consultation. Whilst some of these may not be currently feasible, based on the outcomes of this research we

recommend Wingecarribee Council consider the following:

1. Revisit and reassess Council’s current communication strategy

2. Identify methods and mediums that could better engage the community in Council decision making

3. Ensure that town water quality is always treated as a community priority

4. Communicate the Council’s role in supporting local business and tourism

Next Steps

As a next step, Wingecarribee Council could consider conducting a qualitative deep dive to clarify the

community’s understanding and attitudes to the core drivers of satisfaction. A series of resident focus groups

could be conducted further to explore and contextualise the above recommendations.

Section A

Detailed Findings Importance of and Satisfaction

with Council services and

facilities



October 2010 11

Overview Of Services/Facilities and Rating Scale

The Likert Scale of 1 to 5 was used in all rating questions, where 1 was the lowest importance or satisfaction and 5 the

highest importance or satisfaction. This scale allowed for a mid range position for those who had a divided or neutral

opinion.

Participants were asked to indicate which best described their opinion of the importance of the following

services/facilities to them. Then respondents who rated services/facilities a 4 or 5 in importance were asked to rate

their satisfaction with that service/facility.

Table 2.1

People•Support for youth •Support for people with a disability •Community safety/crime prevention •Support for aged persons •Support for the aboriginal community •Provision and operation of libraries •Festivals and events

Places•Availability of and access to public transport •Availability of car parking in the town and village centres •Condition of local roads •Cycle paths and walking tracks •Dog control •Local traffic management •Protecting Heritage values & Buildings •Provision & maintenance of local parks and gardens •Provision & maintenance of swimming pools •Provision and maintenance of community halls/facilities •Provision and maintenance of playgrounds •Provision and maintenance of sporting facilities •Revitalisation/beautification of town and village centres as well

as the surrounding areas •The cleanliness and functionality of public toilets •The provision and quality of footpaths

We Explored Resident Response To38 Service Areas

Environment•Domestic garbage collection •Encouraging recycling •Encouraging waste reduction initiatives •Enforcement of development and building regulations •Green waste collection •Healthy, natural urban streams and creeks but not rivers •Managing development and growth •Providing adequate drainage •Restoration of natural bushland •Support for community environmental initiatives •The Resource Recovery Centre (RCC/local tip) •Town water quality (taste, smell and colour)

Leadership•Council provision of information to residents •Opportunities to participate in Council decision making

Economy•Support for local business and employment •Support for tourism



October 2010 12

Overview Of Services/Facilities And Rating Scale

Interpreting the Mean Scores

Within the report, the mean ratings for each of the criteria have been assigned a determined ‘level of importance or

satisfaction’. This determination is based on the following groupings:

Mean rating

1.99 or lower ‘Very low’ level of importance/satisfaction

2.00 – 2.49 ‘Low’ level of importance/satisfaction

2.50 – 2.99 ‘Moderately low’ levels of importance/satisfaction

3.00 – 3.59 ‘Moderate’ level of importance/satisfaction

3.60 – 3.89 ‘Moderately high’ level of importance/satisfaction

3.90 – 4.19 ‘High’ level of importance/satisfaction

4.20 – 4.49 ‘Very high’ level of importance/satisfaction

4.50 + ‘Extreme’ level of importance/satisfaction

Interpreting Performance Gap

Within the report, the mean ratings for each of the criteria have been assigned a determined ‘level of importance or

satisfaction’. To identify the performance gap we subtract the rated satisfaction mean score from the stated importance

mean scores:

Performance gap

1.50 or higher Extremely high gap between importance and satisfaction

Requires Immediate Action – Code Violet

0.90 – 1.49 Moderately high – Very high gap between importance and satisfaction

Requires Immediate Investigation – Code Red

0.20 – 0.89 Moderately low – Moderate gap between importance and satisfaction

Monitor – Code Grey

0.00 – 0.19 Minimal gap between importance and satisfaction

Monitor – Code Blue

Less than Zero Negative performance gap between importance and satisfaction

Revisit/Reconsider Resource Allocation – Code Green



October 2010 13

Importance of and Satisfaction with Council Services People

People – Services and facilities rated

Support for youth

Support for people with a disability


Support for aged persons

Support for the aboriginal community

Provision and operation of libraries


Contribution to Overall Satisfaction with Council (Regression Data)

Based on the regression analysis, Council performance, in the areas charted below, accounts for 13.7% of overall

satisfaction.

Figure 2.2.1

Coles

89%

0.8

1.5

1.5

1.7

2.3

2.5

3.3

13.7

0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0






Support for youth


People (Nett)



October 2010 14


Overview of Rating Scores

Importance - overall

In terms of importance 5 of the 7 services/facilities were stated to be of ‘very high’ to ‘extremely high’ importance.

These were:

Support for youth





The remaining 2 services/facilities ‘festivals and events’ and ‘support for the aboriginal community’ were considered to

be of ‘moderately high’ importance.

Importance – by age

50-64y/o & over considered both ‘festivals and events’ and ‘community safety/crime prevention’ significantly less

important than 18-34 y/o.

Respondents aged 18-34 years considered ‘support for aged persons’ significantly more important than 35-49 y/o.

Importance – by gender

Females attributed significantly higher levels of importance to 5 of the 7 services/facilities than did males. These were:

Support for youth





Importance – by town/village

Townspeople attributed significantly higher levels of importance to ‘support for aged persons’ than did villagers.



October 2010 15


Satisfaction – overall

With the exception of ‘support for youth’, that was rated to be of ‘moderately low’ satisfaction, resident satisfaction with

6 of the 7 services/facilities was ‘moderate’ to ‘high’. These were:







Satisfaction – by age

Respondents in the 35-49 age group expressed a significantly lower level of satisfaction than those 18-34y/o with

‘support for aged persons’, ‘support for people with a disability’ and ‘support for the aboriginal community’.

When compared to the 50-64 age group, respondents aged 35-49 also expressed a significantly lower level of

satisfaction with ‘community safety/crime prevention’.

Satisfaction – by gender

There were no significant differences observed by gender.

Satisfaction – by town/village

Relative to townspeople, villagers had significantly higher levels of satisfaction with ‘festivals and events’ and ‘support

for youth’. Conversely townspeople had significantly higher levels of satisfaction with ‘support for aged persons’ and

‘provision and operation of libraries’.



October 2010 16


Figure 2.2.2

17%

29%

37%

56%

5%

36%

13%

66%

13%

72%

10%

65%

3%

66%

51%

33%

44%

25%

30%

28%

34%

23%

34%

19%

27%

22%

13%

19%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Satisfaction

Importance

Satisfaction

Importance

Satisfaction

Importance

Satisfaction

Importance

Satisfaction

Importance

Satisfaction

Importance

Satisfaction

Importance

Support for youth

Mean

ratings

Community

sa fety/crime

prevention

Base: Importance n=400, Satisfaction n=192-351

Support for people

with a disability


4.43

2.66

4.45

3.18

4.56

3.40

4.49Support for aged

persons3.41

4.14

People

3.77

4.28Provision and operation of

l ibraries

3.73

3.69


3.12

Performance

gap

1.77

1.27

1.16

1.08

0.14

0.04

0.65



Very important Important Extremely high gap Moderately low

- moderate gap

Very satisfied Satisfied Moderately high

– very high gap

Minimal gap



October 2010 17


Quadrant Analysis Table 2.2



Support for youth Community safety/crime prevention

Support for people with a disability Support for aged persons




Support for the aboriginal community Festivals and events

Recommendations

Based on the stated outcomes analysis, Wingecarribee Shire Council needs to improve:

Support for youth


Additionally, Wingecarribee Shire Council needs to foster and maintain resident satisfaction with:





I

m

p

o

r

t

a

n

c

e



October 2010 18

Importance of and Satisfaction with Council Services Places

Places – Services and facilities rated

Availability of and access to public transport

Availability of car parking in the town and village centres

Condition of local roads

Cycle paths and walking tracks

Dog control


Protecting Heritage values & Buildings

Provision & maintenance of local parks and gardens

Provision & maintenance of swimming pools

Provision and maintenance of community halls/facilities


Provision and maintenance of sporting facilities

Revitalisation/beautification of town and village centres as well as the surrounding areas


The provision and quality of footpaths


Based on the regression analysis, Council performance, in the areas charted below, accounts for over 26% of overall

satisfaction. Figure 2.3.1

Coles

89%

0.7

0.8

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

2.2

2.5

2.7

2.8

3.4

26.1

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0








Dog control




Revitalisation/beautification of town and village centres as well as the surrounding areas




Places (Nett)



October 2010 19




In terms of importance 5 of the 15 services/facilities were stated to be of ‘very high’ to ‘extremely high’ importance.

These were:






The remaining 10 services/facilities were considered to be of ‘high’ importance.


50-64y/o considered ‘revitalisation/beautification of town and village centres as well as the surrounding areas’

significantly less important than residents aged 65 years and over. 50-64y/o also considered the ‘condition of local

roads’ significantly less important than 18-34 y/o.

Respondents aged 18-34 years rated 4 services/facilities significantly more important than 35-49 y/o. These were:





Respondents aged 18-34 years also considered the ‘provision and maintenance of playgrounds’ and the ‘provision and

maintenance of sporting facilities’ significantly more important than residents aged 65 years and over.

35-49 y/o considered the ‘provision and maintenance of swimming pools’ significantly more important than residents

aged 65 years and over.





Dog control








Townspeople attributed significantly higher levels of importance to the ‘provision & maintenance of local parks and

gardens’, ‘local traffic management’ and ‘the provision and quality of footpaths’ than did villagers.



October 2010 20



Resident satisfaction with 2 of the 15 services/facilities was ‘moderately high’. These were:



Resident satisfaction with 4 of the 15 services/facilities was ‘moderately low’ to ‘low’. These were:





Satisfaction with the remaining 9 services/facilities was ‘moderate’.


Those in the age group 35-49 y/o and 65 years & over expressed lower levels of satisfaction than residents aged 18-

34 y/o for ‘the provision and quality of footpaths’ and ‘provision and maintenance of community halls/facilities’.

18-34 y/o were significantly more satisfied with ‘protecting Heritage values & Buildings’ than were residents 50 years

and over.

35-49 years considered ‘provision and maintenance of sporting facilities’ significantly less satisfying than 18-24 y/o.


Males attributed significantly higher levels of satisfaction to 2 services/facilities than did females. These were:



Females were significantly more positive about ‘cycle paths and walking tracks’ than males.


Compared to townspeople, villagers had a significantly higher level of satisfaction with ‘protecting Heritage values and

Buildings’. Perhaps not surprisingly, townspeople indicated significantly higher levels of satisfaction with the ‘availability

and access to public transport’.



October 2010 21


Figure 2.3.2



Very important Important Extremely high gap Moderately low

– moderate gap

Very satisfied Satisfied Moderately high

– very high gap

20%

49%

10%

46%

9%

51%

7%

54%

5%

54%

8%

56%

5%

65%

1%

68%

29%

29%

29%

23%

28%

24%

36%

30%

21%

29%

15%

22%

15%

22%

13%

23%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Satisfaction

Importance

Satisfaction

Importance

Satisfaction

Importance

Satisfaction

Importance

Satisfaction

Importance

Satisfaction

Importance

Satisfaction

Importance

Satisfaction

Importance

Condition of

local roads

Mean

ratings

Availability of

and access to

public transport


Availability of car

parking in the town

and village centres

The cleanliness and

functionality of

public toilets

4.53

2.29

4.45

2.44

4.16

2.57

4.30

2.77

The provision and

quality of footpaths

3.15

3.21

Places - Part 1

4.12

3.95

Local traffic

management

Provision &

maintenance of

swimming pools

4.14

3.38

Cycle paths and

walking tracks

4.33

3.16

Performance

gap

2.24

2.01

1.59

1.53

1.18

0.87

0.76

0.96



October 2010 22


Figure 2.3.3



Very important Important Moderately low - moderate gap

Very satisfied Satisfied

21%

37%

12%

37%

18%

50%

14%

38%

18%

51%

20%

48%

8%

36%

40%

28%

47%

35%

38%

24%

35%

34%

41%

26%

41%

37%

33%

33%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Satisfaction

Importance

Satisfaction

Importance

Satisfaction

Importance

Satisfaction

Importance

Satisfaction

Importance

Satisfaction

Importance

Satisfaction

Importance

Revitalisation/

beautification of

town and village

centres as well as

the surrounding

areas

Mean

ratings

Provision and

maintenance of

sporting facilities


Provision &

maintenance of local

parks and gardens

Provision and

maintenance of

playgrounds

3.95

3.21

4.28

3.64

4.15

3.59

3.96Protecting heritage

values & buildings3.43

3.57

Places - Part 2

4.10

3.99Provision and

maintenance of

community

halls/facilities

3.88

3.59

Dog control

3.60

Performance

gap

0.74

0.64

0.56

0.53

0.42

0.29

0.50



October 2010 23





Condition of local roads Provision & maintenance of local parks and gardens






Availability of and access to public transport Cycle paths and walking tracks

The cleanliness and functionality of public toilets Provision and maintenance of sporting facilities

Provision & maintenance of swimming pools Protecting Heritage values & Buildings

Revitalisation/beautification of town and village centres

as well as the surrounding areas Provision and maintenance of playgrounds


Dog control

Recommendations









I

m

p

o

r

t

a

n

c

e



October 2010 24

Importance of and Satisfaction with Council Services Environment

Environment – Services and facilities rated

Domestic garbage collection

Encouraging recycling

Encouraging waste reduction initiatives

Enforcement of development and building regulations

Green waste collection



Providing adequate drainage

Restoration of natural bushland

Support for community environmental initiatives

The Resource Recovery Centre (RCC/local tip)




satisfaction. Figure 2.4.1

Coles

89%

0.2

0.6

0.9

1.0

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.1

2.4

2.5

2.9

12.4

30.5

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0













Environment (Nett)



October 2010 25




In terms of importance, 9 of the 12 services/facilities were rated to be of ‘very high’ to ‘extremely high’ importance.

These were:












Residents aged 65+ considered ‘the Resource Recovery Centre’ and ‘managing development and growth’ significantly

less important than residents aged 18-34 y/o.

Respondents aged 18-34 years rated 3 services/facilities significantly more important than 35-49 y/o. These were:














Villagers attributed significantly lower levels of importance to 4 out of the 12 services/facilities than did townspeople.

These were:







October 2010 26



Resident satisfaction with 4 of the 12 services/facilities was ‘moderately high’ to ‘very high’. These were:





Resident satisfaction with 3 of the 12 services/facilities was ‘moderately low’ to ‘low’. These were:






Those in the age group 65 years & over expressed higher levels of satisfaction than residents aged 18-34 y/o for

‘domestic garbage collections.’

18-34 y/o were significantly more satisfied with ‘support for community environmental initiatives’ than were 35-49

y/o.

35-64 years considered ‘restoration of natural bushland’ significantly less satisfying than 18-24 y/o.


There were no significant differences observed by gender.


Compared to townspeople, villagers expressed significantly higher levels of satisfaction with ‘managing development

and growth’ and ‘enforcement of development and building regulations ‘.

Townspeople had significantly higher levels of satisfaction with ‘the Resource Recovery Centre’ and ‘providing adequate

drainage’.



October 2010 27


Figure 2.4.2

23%

68%

7%

51%

10%

50%

13%

61%

6%

50%

12%

49%

4%

59%

33%

25%

29%

33%

24%

31%

27%

26%

22%

32%

16%

22%

19%

25%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Satisfaction

Importance

Satisfaction

Importance

Satisfaction

Importance

Satisfaction

Importance

Satisfaction

Importance

Satisfaction

Importance

Satisfaction

ImportanceManaging

development and

growth

Mean

ratings

Enforcement of

development

and building

regulations


Green waste

collection

Providing

adequate

drainage

4.37

2.82

3.91

2.48

4.22

2.88

4.43

Encouraging waste

reduction initiatives3.28

3.25

Environment - Part 1

4.21

4.26Healthy, natural

urban streams

and creeks but

not rivers

4.56

3.63

Encouraging

recycling

3.12

Performance

gap

1.55

1.43

1.34

1.15

1.01

0.93

1.09



Very important Important Extremely high gap

Very satisfied Satisfied Moderately high – very high gap



October 2010 28


Figure 2.4.3

35%

54%

51%

70%

15%

44%

30%

74%

7%

44%

36%

28%

31%

20%

34%

34%

44%

17%

37%

31%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Satisfaction

Importance

Satisfaction

Importance

Satisfaction

Importance

Satisfaction

Importance

Satisfaction

Importance

Mean

ratings

Town water quality

(taste, smell and

colour)


Support for

community

environmental

initiatives

Domestic garbage

collection

4.07

3.35

4.50

3.89

4.11

Restoration of

natural bushland3.51

3.90

Environment - Part 2

4.51

4.22

The Resource

Recovery Centre

(RCC/local tip)

4.18

Performance

gap

0.72

0.61

0.60

0.33

0.32

Very important Important Moderately low – moderate gap




October 2010 29





Managing development and growth Encouraging waste reduction initiatives

Enforcement of development and building regulations Encouraging recycling

Healthy, natural urban streams and creeks but not rivers Town water quality (taste, smell and colour)





Green waste collection Support for community environmental initiatives

Providing adequate drainage Restoration of natural bushland

Recommendations












I

m

p

o

r

t

a

n

c

e



October 2010 30

Importance of and Satisfaction with Council Services Leadership and Economy

Leadership and Economy – Services and facilities rated




Support for tourism



satisfaction.

Figure 2.5.1

Coles

89%

3.5

5.0

8.5

12.7

29.8

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

Support for tourism




Leadership and Economy (Nett)



October 2010 31




In terms of importance, 2 of the 4 services/facilities were rated to be of ‘very high’ importance. These were:





Respondents aged 18-34 rated ‘support for local business and employment’ as being of ‘extremely high’ importance,

which was significantly higher than the score expressed by residents aged 50 years and over


Females attributed significantly higher levels of importance to ‘support for local business and employment’ than did

males.


No significant differences were observed.


Resident satisfaction with ‘support for tourism’ was ‘moderately high’.

Resident satisfaction with ‘opportunities to participate in Council decision making’ was ‘moderately low’.










October 2010 32


Figure 2.5.2

20%

43%

11%

54%

5%

43%

10%

60%

45%

35%

30%

35%

20%

33%

24%

27%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Satisfaction

Importance

Satisfaction

Importance

Satisfaction

Importance

Satisfaction

Importance


Leadership and Economy

Support for local

business and

employment

Mean

ratings

Council provision of

information to

residents

Opportunities to

participate in

Council decision

making

4.42

3.16

4.08

2.83

4.39

3.25

Support for tourism

4.07

3.73

Performance

gap

1.26

1.25

1.14

0.34



Very important Important Moderately high – very high gap

Very satisfied Satisfied Moderately low – moderate gap



October 2010 33









Opportunities to participate in Council decision making Support for tourism

Recommendations





I

m

p

o

r

t

a

n

c

e



October 2010 34

Overall Satisfaction with the Performance of Council

59% of residents indicated that they were either ‘satisfied’ (55%) or ‘very satisfied’ (4%) with the overall performance of

Council.

15% of residents indicated that they were ‘dissatisfied’ or ‘very dissatisfied’ with the overall performance of Council.

Q6a. Overall, for the last 12 months, how satisfied are you with the performance of Council, not just on one or two

issues, but across all responsibility areas? Figure 2.6.1

2%

13%

26%

55%

4%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neither

Satisfied

Very satisfied

Mean rating - 3.45

Base: n=400

Mean ratings: 1 = very dissatisfied, 5 = very satisfied

Q6b. Why do you say that?

Satisfied

Council is doing a good job 150

Council has good communication with residents 30

Services and facilities in the area are good 20

Some services and facilities need improvement 18

Other 42

Dissatisfied

Lack of road/street maintenance 15

Financial issues 9

Lack of services for the youth 9

Poor services and facilities 9

Development 7

Poor communication 7

Poor management of the environment 5

Other 22



October 2010 35

Comparison with LGA Stated Satisfaction Benchmarks

Comparisons with a Micromex Research developed Local Government Benchmark are able to be made with 15 specific

key criteria that are common to all LGAs.

Sample

The sample includes up to 30 LGAs representing over 30,000 resident interviews.

Comment

Comparisons indicate that Wingecarribee Council performed above average for 5 of the criteria, below for 6 of the

criteria and was equal to the remaining 4 criteria.

Table 2.6

Service/Facility


Satisfaction Scores

LGA Average

Satisfaction

Above the Benchmark

Garbage services 4.2 4.1

Satisfaction with the way contact with Council was handled 4.1 3.9

Playgrounds 3.6 3.4

Cycleways & walking paths 3.4 3.1

Public toilets 3.2 2.9

Equal to the Benchmark

Libraries 4.1 4.1

Recycling 3.7 3.7

Ovals and sporting facilities 3.6 3.6

Overall satisfaction 3.5 3.5

Below the Benchmark

Protection of heritage buildings and items 3.4 3.6

Satisfaction with community consultation/communication 3.5 3.8

Support for people with a disability 3.2 3.3

Youth services and facilities 2.7 3.0

Condition of local roads 2.3 2.8

Support for aged persons 3.4 3.5


Key Takeout

Overall, compared to other LGAs Wingecarribee Shire Council has performed adequately.

The opportunity for Council is to strengthen satisfaction with the measure that it is currently most obviously

underperforming, the ‘condition of local roads’.



October 2010 36

How Wingecarribee Council will Improve Satisfaction

with Its Performance

Overview

Using regression analysis, we have identified the variables that have the greatest influence on driving positive overall

satisfaction with Council.

Figure 2.7.1

0.2

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.6

1.6

1.7

1.7

1.8

2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.7

2.8

2.9

3.3

3.4

3.5

5.0

8.5

12.4

12.7

0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0













Dog control














Revitalisation/beautification of town and village centres as …

Support for youth






Support for tourism





Summary

While all 38 of the service/facilities are important to residents, only the first 7 have a greater than 3% influence on how

residents rate the performance of Council overall. ‘Opportunity to participate in Council decision making’ and ‘town

water quality’ are the core drivers, which when combined account for just over 25% of overall satisfaction with Council.

By comparison, the influence of ‘the Resource Recovery Centre’ on overall satisfaction with Council is only 0.2%.



October 2010 37

How Wingecarribee Council will Improve Satisfaction

with Its Performance

Recommendations

If Wingecarribee Council can address the core drivers, they will be able to improve resident satisfaction with their

performance. Based on the regression analysis, Council performance in the areas listed below account for 60% of

overall satisfaction.

Figure 2.7.2

These Top 11 Indicators Account For 60% Of Overall Satisfaction With Council

Wingecarribee Council needs to concentrate on engaging and consulting

with residents, as well as ensuring town water quality

Coles

89%

2.5

2.7

2.8

2.9

3.3

3.4

3.5

5.0

8.5

12.4

12.7

0.00 3.00 6.00 9.00 12.00 15.00

Support for youth






Support for tourism





Based on the key findings from this research study it is clear from a resident perspective, that there are potentially a

number of areas that require action or at least more salient communication or community consultation. Whilst some of

these may not be currently feasible, based on the outcomes of this research we recommend Wingecarribee Council

consider the following:

1. Revisit and reassess Council’s current communication strategy

2. Identify methods and mediums that could better engage the community in Council decision making

3. Ensure that town water quality is always treated as a community priority

4. Communicate the Council’s role in supporting local business and tourism



October 2010 38

Council’s Image Within the Community

42% of residents rated the Council’s image within the community as either ‘good’ or ‘very good’

29% of residents indicated that they believe Council has a ‘poor’ to ‘very poor’ community image

Council needs to identify how it can strengthen its image

Q6c. Overall, how would you rate Council’s image within the community?

Figure 2.7.3

Mean ratings: 1 = very poor, 5 = very good

3%

26%

28%

40%

2%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Very poor

Poor

Neither

Good

Very good

Mean rating - 3.12

Section B

Contact with Council



October 2010 39

Contact with Council in the last 12 months

41% of residents had made contact with Council in the 12 months leading up to the survey.

An issue related to ‘development’ was the primary reason for contacting Council (30%).

The predominant method of contact was via telephone (63%).

81% of residents who contacted were satisfied with the outcome

Only 6% of residents were dissatisfied with the way the contact was handled

Figure 3.1.1

Q2. Have you contacted Council in the last 12 months?

Yes

41%No

59%

Figure 3.1.2

Q3a. Thinking of the last time when you made contact

with the Council staff, was it by:

6%

6%

26%

63%

0% 25% 50% 75%

Email

Mai l

I n person

Phone

Base: n=400 Base: n=165

Figure 3.1.3

Q3b. What was the nature of your enquiry? Figure 3.1.4

Q3c. How satisfied were you with the way your contact

was handled?

12%

4%

7%

13%

16%

18%

30%

0% 20% 40%

Other

Community services (youth,

ch ildren, aged care)

Town planning and Zoning

Rates - land or water

Roads, footpaths and parks etc

Waste and clean up services

Bu ilding and development

approval

3%

3%

13%

46%

35%

0% 25% 50%

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neither

Satisfied

Very satisfied

Base: n=165 Base: n=165




October 2010 40

Contact with Council in the last 12 months

Q3d. (If dissatisfied or very dissatisfied), how could the way this contact was handled have been improved?

Staff should be more polite and understanding 4

Council should reply to emails/phone calls 3

Staff should be more knowledgeable and be able to provide the correct information 2

Should be more open to hear residents' concerns 1



October 2010 41

Satisfaction with Council’s communication

81% of residents expressed satisfaction with the information they get from Council about its services and activities. Only

6% of residents expressed dissatisfaction with the current levels of information/consultation.

Q4a. How satisfied are you with the level of communication Council currently has with the community?

Figure 3.2.1

3%

3%

13%

46%

35%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neither

Satisfied

Very satisfied

Mean rating - 3.49

Base: n=400

Q4b. (If dissatisfied or very dissatisfied), how do you think Council could improve its communication?

Make information more available to residents by sending frequent newsletters or emails, notices in public

places and/or advertising in the local newspaper or radio 28

More community meetings and forums 13

Better training of Council staff in customer service 5

Increased transparency 3

Better communication within Council 2

Improved online presence 2

Improved responses to resident communications 2

Section C

Priorities for the Local Area



October 2010 42

Best Thing About Living in the Wingecarribee Area

The natural environment and quality of life are the best things about living in the Wingecarribee LGA.

Q6d. Thinking generally about living in the Wingecarribee area, what do you feel is the best thing about living here?

Figure 4.1

Environment

39%

High quality of

l ife/lifestyle

30%

Community sp irit/people

12%

Location11%

Access to services and

facilities

2%

Other

5%

Base: n=396

Environment 39%

Climate 10%

Fresh air 8%

Natural environment 7%

Open spaces 6%

Other 9%

High quality of life/lifestyle 30%

Rural environment/lifestyle 18%

Peace and quiet 7%

Other 5%

Community spirit/people 12%

Great community environment/spirit 6%

Other 5%

Location 11%

Proximity to other locations, e.g. Sydney, Canberra, the countryside and the coast 4%

Great location 3%

Other 2%

Access to services and facilities 2%

Facilities/amenities 1%

Other 1%

Other 5%



October 2010 43

Agreement with Specific Statements

95% of residents indicate they ‘feel there are benefits to living in a community with people of diverse ages,

backgrounds and cultures’

90% of residents indicated that they are satisfied ‘with the current level of water pressure when using town water’

86% of residents agreed that they feel a part of the local community 84% indicated that they feel there are adequate support networks available to them if required 49% of residents feel that there is an adequate number of public toilets in the shire

Q7. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Figure 4.2

49%

84%

86%

90%

95%

51%

16%

14%

10%

5%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

I feel that there is an adequate number of public toilets in the

Wingecarribee Shire

I feel there are adequate support networks available to me if I need

them

I feel a part of my local community

I am satisfied with the current level of water pressure I get when using

town water

I feel there are benefits to living in a community with people of

diverse ages, backgrounds and cultures

Agree Disagree

Base: n=342-399



October 2010 44

Activities Within the Shire

While living in the Wingecarribee Shire Council:

90% of residents agree that they have the opportunity to participate in arts and related activities

93% of residents indicated they believe they have the opportunity to participate in recreational and sporting

activities In the last 12 months, 56% of residents have participated in a volunteer activities

Q8a. Do you believe that living in the Shire you have the opportunity to participate in arts and related activities?

Figure 4.3.1

Yes

90%

No

10%

Q8b. Do you believe that living in the Shire you have the opportunity to participate in recreational and sporting

activities?

Figure 4.3.2

Yes93%

No7%

Q8c. In the last 12 months have you participated in any volunteer activities?

Figure 4.3.3

Yes

56%

No44%



October 2010 45

Response Timeliness

Resident satisfaction with Council’s response timeliness to the 4 key issues ranged widely:

75% of residents were satisfied with response to ‘water supply’ 72% of residents were satisfied with response to ‘sewerage’ 31% of residents were satisfied with response to ‘drainage’ Only 18% of residents were satisfied with response to ‘roads’

Q9. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is very dissatisfied and 5 is very satisfied, how satisfied are you with the timeliness

of Council response to:

Figure 4.4

2%

6%

30%

30%

16%

25%

42%

45%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Roads

Drainage

Sewerage

Water

supply

Mean

ratings

Base: n=332-380

3.96

3.89

3.03

2.56



Appendix A

Demographics



October 2010 46

Demographics

Q10a. Please stop me when I read out your age group. Table 5.1.1

Q10b. Were you born in Australia or overseas?

Table 5.1.2

Q11. Which of the following best describes your current employment status?

Table 5.1.3

Q12. Which of the following best describes the house where you are currently living?

Table 5.1.4

79 20%

114 28%

110 28%

97 24%

400 100%

18 - 34

35 - 49

50 - 64

65+ years and over

Total

Count Col umn %

344 86%

56 14%

400 100%

Australia

Overseas

Total

Count Col umn %

140 35%

130 33%

76 19%

30 8%

12 3%

8 2%

1 0%

396 100%

Currently in full time paid employment

Retired from paid employment

Currently in part time paid employment (at least 10 hours a week)

Household duties

Studying at school, TAFE or university

Currently looking for paid employment

Carer

Total

Count Col umn %

359 90%

41 10%

400 100%

I/We own/are currently buying this property

I/We currently rent this property

Total

Count Col umn %



October 2010 47

Demographics

Q13. Which of the following best describes your status? Table 5.1.5

Q14a. How long have you lived in the local area?

Table 5.1.6

107 28%

78 20%

71 19%

70 18%

32 8%

12 3%

11 3%

2 1%

2 1%

385 100%

Married/de facto with no children

Married/de facto with children under 12

Married/de facto with children over 12

Single with no children

Married/defacto with children both under and over 12

Single parent with children over 12

Living at home with parents

Single parent with children both under and over 12

Single parent with children under 12

Total

Count Col umn %

7 2%

35 9%

90 23%

83 21%

184 46%

400 100%

Up to 2 years

2 - 5 years

6 - 10 years

11 - 20 years

More than 20 years

Total

Count Col umn %



October 2010 48

Demographics

Q14b. In which suburb do you live?

Table 5.1.7

Q15. Gender.

Table 5.1.8

94 23%

72 18%

67 17%

31 8%

30 7%

19 5%

16 4%

14 4%

12 3%

11 3%

7 2%

4 1%

4 1%

3 1%

3 1%

3 1%

2 1%

2 0%

2 0%

1 0%

1 0%

1 0%

400 100%

Bowral

Moss Vale

Mittagong

Bundanoon

Hill Top

Robertson

Berrima

Colo Vale

Yerrinbool

Exeter

Penrose

Canyonleigh

Wingello

Joadja

Burrawang

High Range

Balmoral

Avoca

Sutton Forest

Wildes Meadow

New Berrima

Kangaloon

Total

Count Col umn %

176 44%

224 56%

400 100%

Male

Female

Total

Count Col umn %

Appendix B

Data and Correlation Tables



October 2010 49


Table 6.1.1

Service/Facility - Importance 18 - 34 35 - 49 50 - 64 65+ Male Female Town Village Overall

Festivals and events 3.97 3.69 3.53 3.80 3.65 3.80 3.75 3.70 3.73

Community safety/crime

prevention 4.82 4.53 4.40 4.58 4.47 4.63 4.59 4.53 4.56

Support for aged persons 4.67 4.30 4.47 4.59 4.36 4.59 4.57 4.39 4.49

Support for people with a disability 4.64 4.34 4.35 4.52 4.31 4.55 4.47 4.41 4.45

Support for youth 4.61 4.50 4.28 4.36 4.30 4.53 4.46 4.39 4.43

Support for the aboriginal

community 3.82 3.58 3.84 3.88 3.49 4.00 3.82 3.71 3.77

Provision and operation of libraries 4.06 4.22 4.41 4.36 4.07 4.44 4.35 4.18 4.28

Table 6.1.2

Service/Facility - Satisfaction 18 - 34 35 - 49 50 - 64 65+ Male Female Town Village Overall

Festivals and events 3.65 3.59 3.75 3.80 3.67 3.71 3.56 3.87 3.69

Community safety/crime prevention 3.48 3.18 3.55 3.43 3.35 3.45 3.40 3.41 3.40

Support for aged persons 3.63 3.10 3.43 3.50 3.38 3.44 3.52 3.26 3.41

Support for people with a disability 3.58 2.99 3.07 3.16 3.28 3.11 3.19 3.16 3.18

Support for youth 2.75 2.62 2.62 2.66 2.58 2.71 2.56 2.78 2.66


community 3.59 2.98 2.88 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.10 3.14 3.12

Provision and operation of libraries 4.36 4.06 4.05 4.18 4.12 4.16 4.25 3.98 4.14

= A significantly higher level of importance/satisfaction (by group)

= A significantly lower level of importance/satisfaction (by group)





October 2010 50


Table 6.1.3

Table 6.1.4

18 5% 36 9% 98 25% 130 33% 117 29% 400 100%

9 2% 7 2% 20 5% 77 19% 287 72% 400 100%

5 1% 14 3% 25 6% 91 23% 265 66% 400 100%

9 2% 10 3% 33 8% 87 22% 260 65% 400 100%

7 2% 16 4% 36 9% 78 19% 262 66% 400 100%

29 7% 32 8% 83 21% 112 28% 144 36% 400 100%

11 3% 16 4% 48 12% 100 25% 224 56% 400 100%



prevention


Support for people with a

disability

Support for youth


community

Provision and operation of

libraries

Count Row %

Not at al l

importan t

Count Row %

Not very

importan t

Count Row %

Neither

Count Row %

Importan t

Count Row %

Very importan t

Count Row %

Total

11 5% 15 6% 53 22% 124 51% 41 17% 244 100%

12 3% 42 12% 133 38% 120 34% 44 13% 351 100%

11 3% 38 12% 123 38% 110 34% 41 13% 324 100%

17 6% 49 17% 117 41% 77 27% 29 10% 289 100%

35 11% 98 31% 127 41% 41 13% 10 3% 310 100%

16 8% 22 11% 87 45% 58 30% 10 5% 192 100%

3 1% 9 3% 46 15% 138 44% 116 37% 312 100%



prevention


Support for people with a

disability

Support for youth


community

Provision and operation of

libraries

Count Row %

Very

dissatis f ied

Count Row %

Diss ati sf ied

Count Row %

Neither

Count Row %

Sati sf ied

Count Row %

Very sati sf ied

Count Row %

Total



October 2010 51


Table 6.2.1


Revitalisation/beautification of town and

village centres as well as the

surrounding areas

4.00 3.91 3.76 4.19 3.86 4.03 4.01 3.87 3.95

Protecting Heritage values & Buildings 3.88 3.87 3.98 4.12 3.83 4.07 4.00 3.92 3.96

Provision & maintenance of local parks

and gardens 4.33 4.32 4.12 4.36 4.13 4.40 4.38 4.15 4.28

Dog control 3.94 3.82 3.85 3.95 3.75 3.99 3.94 3.80 3.88

The cleanliness and functionality of public

toilets 4.06 4.32 4.10 3.95 4.00 4.22 4.11 4.13 4.12

Availability of car parking in the town

and village centres 4.73 4.24 4.40 4.53 4.42 4.48 4.51 4.38 4.45

Cycle paths and walking tracks 4.30 4.17 4.08 4.04 3.98 4.27 4.20 4.06 4.14

Local traffic management 4.52 4.15 4.39 4.32 4.27 4.37 4.42 4.20 4.33

Availability of and access to public

transport 4.36 4.06 4.13 4.16 4.01 4.28 4.11 4.24 4.16

Condition of local roads 4.82 4.42 4.47 4.50 4.50 4.55 4.53 4.53 4.53

The provision and quality of footpaths 4.61 4.17 4.26 4.25 4.15 4.41 4.39 4.18 4.30

Provision & maintenance of swimming

pools 4.03 4.18 3.89 3.67 3.83 4.04 3.98 3.90 3.95

Provision and maintenance of

playgrounds 4.39 4.18 4.03 3.83 3.92 4.24 4.16 4.02 4.10

Provision and maintenance of sporting

facilities 4.36 4.28 4.08 3.89 4.02 4.25 4.17 4.12 4.15

Provision and maintenance of community

halls/facilities 4.09 3.85 4.06 3.98 3.79 4.15 3.99 3.99 3.99







October 2010 52


Table 6.2.2


Revitalisation/beautification of town and

village centres as well as the

surrounding areas

3.55 3.12 3.11 3.14 3.17 3.23 3.16 3.27 3.21

Protecting Heritage values & Buildings 3.83 3.35 3.31 3.35 3.57 3.33 3.33 3.59 3.43

Provision & maintenance of local parks

and gardens 3.55 3.59 3.60 3.80 3.66 3.62 3.69 3.55 3.64

Dog control 3.55 3.62 3.65 3.51 3.57 3.60 3.57 3.62 3.59

The cleanliness and functionality of public

toilets 3.06 2.95 3.37 3.30 3.32 3.03 3.13 3.20 3.16

Availability of car parking in the town

and village centres 2.40 2.48 2.40 2.45 2.43 2.44 2.39 2.50 2.44

Cycle paths and walking tracks 3.63 3.20 3.25 3.53 3.12 3.56 3.42 3.32 3.38

Local traffic management 3.37 3.10 3.05 3.15 3.02 3.25 3.13 3.19 3.15

Availability of and access to public

transport 2.68 2.32 2.59 2.72 2.59 2.55 2.73 2.36 2.57

Condition of local roads 2.28 2.21 2.42 2.26 2.27 2.31 2.27 2.33 2.29

The provision and quality of footpaths 3.27 2.53 2.83 2.50 2.77 2.76 2.70 2.87 2.77

Provision & maintenance of swimming

pools 3.35 2.96 2.91 3.25 3.20 3.00 3.00 3.19 3.08


playgrounds 3.75 3.49 3.54 3.69 3.67 3.55 3.61 3.59 3.60

Provision and maintenance of sporting

facilities 3.81 3.32 3.60 3.76 3.63 3.56 3.63 3.53 3.59

Provision and maintenance of community

halls/facilities 3.91 3.47 3.46 3.54 3.59 3.56 3.54 3.61 3.57







October 2010 53


Table 6.2.3

7 2% 23 6% 95 24% 131 33% 143 36% 400 100%

15 4% 27 7% 69 17% 137 34% 152 38% 400 100%

4 1% 12 3% 44 11% 148 37% 191 48% 400 100%

22 5% 15 4% 101 25% 113 28% 149 37% 400 100%

18 5% 21 5% 60 15% 95 24% 205 51% 400 100%

10 2% 7 2% 36 9% 90 22% 258 65% 400 100%

20 5% 10 2% 59 15% 116 29% 195 49% 400 100%

11 3% 3 1% 48 12% 121 30% 217 54% 400 100%

28 7% 16 4% 44 11% 87 22% 225 56% 400 100%

8 2% 7 2% 22 5% 91 23% 272 68% 400 100%

11 3% 6 2% 50 12% 118 29% 215 54% 400 100%

32 8% 18 5% 74 18% 91 23% 185 46% 400 100%

20 5% 15 4% 70 18% 96 24% 199 50% 400 100%

18 4% 16 4% 60 15% 103 26% 203 51% 400 100%

15 4% 11 3% 86 21% 138 35% 149 37% 400 100%

Revitalisation/beautif ication

of town and village centres as

well as the surrounding areas

Protecting Heritage values &

Buildings

Provision & maintenance of

local parks and gardens

Dog control

The cleanliness and

functionality of public toilets

Availability of car parking in

the town and village centres

Cycle paths and walking

tracks


Availability of and access to

public transport


The provision and quality of

footpaths


swimming pools


playgrounds


sporting facilities


community halls/facilities

Count Row %

Not at al l

importan t

Count Row %

Not very

importan t

Count Row %

Neither

Count Row %

Importan t

Count Row %

Very importan t

Count Row %

Total



October 2010 54


Table 6.2.4

15 6% 44 16% 104 38% 89 33% 21 8% 273 100%

14 5% 25 9% 97 36% 95 35% 38 14% 268 100%

14 4% 28 8% 91 27% 140 41% 66 20% 340 100%

18 7% 21 8% 57 23% 99 40% 52 21% 248 100%

20 8% 36 14% 106 41% 72 28% 23 9% 257 100%

84 24% 116 33% 77 22% 51 15% 18 5% 346 100%

22 7% 48 16% 89 29% 88 29% 60 20% 307 100%

33 10% 55 16% 103 31% 121 36% 25 7% 337 100%

71 24% 73 25% 85 29% 43 15% 22 8% 293 100%

89 25% 130 36% 94 26% 46 13% 3 1% 362 100%

60 18% 62 19% 122 37% 69 21% 18 5% 331 100%

34 13% 38 14% 91 34% 76 29% 26 10% 265 100%

8 3% 20 7% 96 34% 106 38% 49 18% 279 100%

16 5% 22 8% 80 28% 121 41% 53 18% 292 100%

6 2% 23 8% 86 31% 128 47% 32 12% 274 100%

Revitalisation/beautif ication

of town and village centres as

well as the surrounding areas

Protecting Heritage values &

Buildings


local parks and gardens

Dog control

The cleanliness and

functionality of public toilets

Availability of car parking in

the town and village centres

Cycle paths and walking

tracks


Availability of and access to

public transport


The provision and quality of

footpaths


swimming pools


playgrounds


sporting facilities


community halls/facilities

Count Row %

Very

dissatis f ied

Count Row %

Diss ati sf ied

Count Row %

Neither

Count Row %

Sati sf ied

Count Row %

Very sati sf ied

Count Row %

Total



October 2010 55


Table 6.3.1


Green waste collection 4.09 3.89 3.83 3.86 3.56 4.19 4.11 3.64 3.91

The Resource Recovery Centre (RCC/local

tip) 4.48 4.19 4.22 4.05 4.13 4.29 4.27 4.16 4.22

Domestic garbage collection 4.76 4.35 4.47 4.55 4.38 4.61 4.68 4.29 4.51

Providing adequate drainage 4.45 4.09 4.21 4.14 4.12 4.28 4.31 4.06 4.21

Support for community environmental

initiatives 4.18 4.03 4.06 4.04 3.93 4.18 4.15 3.97 4.07

Restoration of natural bushland 4.27 3.93 4.10 4.19 3.89 4.28 4.17 4.02 4.11

Healthy, natural urban streams and

creeks but not rivers 4.24 4.17 4.31 4.32 4.16 4.34 4.31 4.19 4.26

Encouraging recycling 4.73 4.43 4.58 4.56 4.43 4.67 4.62 4.49 4.56

Encouraging waste reduction initiatives 4.55 4.29 4.53 4.39 4.32 4.52 4.46 4.40 4.43

Managing development and growth 4.55 4.28 4.51 4.17 4.28 4.44 4.36 4.38 4.37

Enforcement of development and building

regulations 4.48 3.98 4.25 4.26 4.06 4.35 4.26 4.17 4.22

Town water quality (taste, smell and

colour) 4.70 4.37 4.47 4.53 4.44 4.55 4.76 4.15 4.50

Table 6.3.2


Green waste collection 2.82 2.16 2.62 2.41 2.60 2.40 2.56 2.34 2.48

The Resource Recovery Centre (RCC/local

tip) 4.00 3.79 3.94 3.89 3.88 3.91 4.03 3.71 3.90

Domestic garbage collection 3.94 4.02 4.30 4.44 4.13 4.23 4.27 4.05 4.18

Providing adequate drainage 3.28 2.94 3.16 3.13 3.18 3.06 3.22 2.96 3.12

Support for community environmental

initiatives 3.67 3.15 3.33 3.32 3.44 3.28 3.31 3.41 3.35

Restoration of natural bushland 3.85 3.39 3.38 3.52 3.51 3.52 3.50 3.53 3.51

Healthy, natural urban streams and

creeks but not rivers 3.36 3.27 3.14 3.25 3.31 3.19 3.24 3.26 3.25

Encouraging recycling 3.66 3.45 3.68 3.76 3.62 3.65 3.70 3.53 3.63

Encouraging waste reduction initiatives 3.43 3.11 3.29 3.33 3.36 3.23 3.36 3.19 3.28

Managing development and growth 3.04 2.79 2.74 2.76 2.83 2.81 2.65 3.04 2.82

Enforcement of development and building

regulations 3.14 2.76 2.79 2.86 2.82 2.92 2.78 3.02 2.88

Town water quality (taste, smell and

colour) 3.87 3.71 4.07 3.93 3.93 3.87 3.95 3.80 3.89







October 2010 56


Table 6.3.3

Table 6.3.4

47 12% 24 6% 43 11% 90 22% 196 49% 400 100%

21 5% 8 2% 45 11% 111 28% 214 54% 400 100%

15 4% 5 1% 21 5% 78 20% 280 70% 400 100%

17 4% 9 2% 50 12% 124 31% 200 50% 400 100%

19 5% 12 3% 67 17% 124 31% 177 44% 400 100%

16 4% 16 4% 54 14% 135 34% 178 44% 400 100%

13 3% 8 2% 45 11% 132 33% 203 51% 400 100%

5 1% 5 1% 19 5% 99 25% 271 68% 400 100%

3 1% 14 4% 33 8% 105 26% 244 61% 400 100%

11 3% 5 1% 47 12% 99 25% 237 59% 400 100%

11 3% 13 3% 50 12% 126 32% 199 50% 400 100%

27 7% 0 0% 11 3% 66 17% 294 74% 400 100%

Green waste collec tion

The Resource Recovery

Centre (RCC/local tip)



Support for community

environmental initiatives

Restoration of natural

bushland

Healthy, natural urban

streams and creeks but not

rivers


Encouraging waste reduction

initiatives

Managing development and

growth

Enforcement of development

and building regulations

Town water quality (taste,

smell and colour)

Count Row %

Not at al l

importan t

Count Row %

Not very

importan t

Count Row %

Neither

Count Row %

Importan t

Count Row %

Very importan t

Count Row %

Total

96 36% 52 20% 42 16% 41 16% 33 12% 264 100%

11 4% 29 9% 51 16% 114 36% 110 35% 314 100%

17 5% 18 5% 29 8% 109 31% 181 51% 354 100%

23 7% 57 18% 132 41% 77 24% 31 10% 320 100%

12 4% 26 9% 122 43% 106 37% 21 7% 286 100%

8 3% 22 7% 122 41% 102 34% 44 15% 298 100%

10 3% 35 11% 152 50% 89 29% 22 7% 308 100%

14 4% 33 9% 113 31% 122 33% 86 23% 369 100%

17 5% 52 15% 133 39% 92 27% 45 13% 340 100%

37 11% 77 23% 143 43% 64 19% 13 4% 334 100%

39 13% 62 20% 122 40% 67 22% 18 6% 309 100%

20 6% 14 4% 58 16% 156 44% 107 30% 355 100%

Green waste collec tion

The Resource Recovery

Centre (RCC/local tip)



Support for community

environmental initiatives

Restoration of natural

bushland

Healthy, natural urban

streams and creeks but not

rivers


Encouraging waste reduction

initiatives

Managing development and

growth

Enforcement of development

and building regulations

Town water quality (taste,

smell and colour)

Count Row %

Very

dissatis f ied

Count Row %

Diss ati sf ied

Count Row %

Neither

Count Row %

Sati sf ied

Count Row %

Very sati sf ied

Count Row %

Total



October 2010 57


Table 6.4.1


Support for local business and

employment 4.70 4.42 4.37 4.26 4.32 4.50 4.40 4.45 4.42

Support for tourism 4.09 3.96 4.08 4.18 3.98 4.14 4.14 3.97 4.07

Opportunities to participate in Council

decision making 4.09 4.04 4.09 4.11 3.97 4.17 4.12 4.02 4.08

Council provision of information to

residents 4.48 4.33 4.43 4.34 4.32 4.45 4.42 4.35 4.39

Table 6.4.2


Support for local business and

employment 3.23 3.01 3.11 3.33 3.12 3.18 3.13 3.19 3.16

Support for tourism 4.00 3.66 3.67 3.67 3.73 3.74 3.72 3.76 3.73

Opportunities to participate in Council

decision making 3.04 2.63 2.71 3.00 2.79 2.86 2.79 2.88 2.83

Council provision of information to

residents 3.23 3.11 3.27 3.40 3.16 3.32 3.22 3.30 3.25




5 = very important and very satisfied Table 6.4.3

Table 6.4.4

3 1% 11 3% 39 10% 107 27% 239 60% 400 100%

19 5% 15 4% 55 14% 139 35% 172 43% 400 100%

16 4% 12 3% 70 18% 130 33% 172 43% 400 100%

4 1% 7 2% 34 8% 140 35% 215 54% 400 100%

Support for local business

and employment

Support for tourism

Opportunities to participate

in Council decision making


information to residents

Count Row %

Not at al l

importan t

Count Row %

Not very

importan t

Count Row %

Neither

Count Row %

Importan t

Count Row %

Very importan t

Count Row %

Total

24 8% 40 12% 151 47% 76 24% 31 10% 323 100%

8 3% 19 6% 78 26% 136 45% 60 20% 301 100%

39 14% 57 20% 119 42% 56 20% 15 5% 287 100%

21 6% 51 14% 139 39% 105 30% 38 11% 354 100%

Support for local business

and employment

Support for tourism

Opportunities to participate

in Council decision making


information to residents

Count Row %

Very

dissatis f ied

Count Row %

Diss at isf ied

Count Row %

Neither

Count Row %

Sati sf ied

Count Row %

Very sati sf ied

Count Row %

Total



October 2010 58

Overall Satisfaction with Council’s Performance


issues, but across all responsibility areas?

Table 6.5.1

18 - 34 35 - 49 50 - 64 65+ Male Female Town Village Overall

Satisfaction mean ratings 3.45 3.34 3.49 3.52 3.48 3.42 3.47 3.41 3.45


Table 6.5.2

Perception of Council’s image within the community

Q6c. Overall, how would you rate Council’s image within the community?

Table 6.6.1


Mean ratings 3.30 2.94 3.11 3.21 3.14 3.11 3.14 3.11 3.12

= A significantly higher level of satisfaction (by group)

= A significantly lower level of satisfaction (by group)

Mean ratings: 1 = very poor, 5 = very good

Table 6.6.2

14 4%

220 55%

106 26%

51 13%

9 2%

400 100%

Very satisf ied

Satisfied

Neither

Dissatisfied

Very dissatisf ied

Total

Count Col umn %

9 2%

162 40%

113 28%

103 26%

13 3%

400 100%

Very good

Good

Neither

Poor

Very poor

Total

Count Col umn %



October 2010 59



Table 6.7.1

Q3a. Thinking of the last time you made contact with Council staff was it by:

Table 6.7.2

Q3b. What was the nature of your enquiry? Table 6.7.3

165 41%

235 59%

400 100%

Yes

No

Total

Count Col umn %

103 63%

42 26%

10 6%

10 6%

165 100%

Phone

In person

Mail

Email

Total

Coun t Col umn %

49 30%

30 18%

26 16%

21 13%

12 7%

7 4%

20 12%

165 100%

Building and development approval

Waste and clean up services

Roads, footpaths and parks etc

Rates - land or water

Town planning and Zoning

Community services (youth, children, aged care)

Other

Total

Count Col umn %



October 2010 60


Q3c. How satisfied were you with the way your contact was handled?

Table 6.7.4




Table 6.7.5

Satisfaction with Council’s Communication

Q4a. How satisfied are you with the level of communication Council currently has with the community?

Table 6.8.1




Table 6.8.2

58 35%

75 46%

22 13%

5 3%

5 3%

165 100%

Very satisf ied

Satisfied

Neither

Dissatisfied

Very dissatisf ied

Total

Count Col umn %

24 6%

215 54%

105 26%

45 11%

11 3%

400 100%

Very satisf ied

Satisfied

Neither

Dissatisfied

Very dissatisf ied

Total

Count Col umn %



October 2010 61

Agreement with Specific Statements

Q7a-e. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

Table 6.9.1

Nb: Some respondents did not answer

345 86% 54 14% 399 100%

321 84% 59 16% 381 100%

374 95% 19 5% 393 100%

166 49% 176 51% 342 100%

324 90% 38 10% 361 100%

I feel a part of my local community

I feel there are adequate support networks available to me

if I need them

I feel there are benefits to living in a community with

people of diverse ages, backgrounds and cultures

I feel that there is an adequate number of public toilets in

the Wingecarribee Shire

I am satisfied with the current level of water pressure I get

when using town water

Count Row %

Agree

Count Row %

Disagree

Count Row %

Total



October 2010 62

Community Activities


Table 6.10.1

Table 6.10.2

Q8b. Do you believe that living in the Shire you have the opportunity to participate in recreational and sporting activities?

Table 6.10.3

Table 6.10.4

210 91% 151 89% 361 90%

20 9% 19 11% 38 10%

230 100% 169 100% 400 100%

Yes

No

Total

Count Col umn %

Town

Count Col umn %

Vill age

Count Col umn %

Overall

67 85% 101 89% 101 92% 92 95% 155 88% 206 92%

12 15% 12 11% 9 8% 5 5% 21 12% 18 8%

79 100% 114 100% 110 100% 97 100% 176 100% 224 100%

Yes

No

Total

Count Col umn %

18 - 34

Count Col umn %

35 - 49

Count Col umn %

50 - 64

Count Col umn %

65+ years and

over

Count Col umn %

Mal e

Count Col umn %

Female

211 92% 159 94% 370 93%

19 8% 11 6% 30 7%

230 100% 169 100% 400 100%

Yes

No

Total

Count Col umn %

Town

Count Col umn %

Vill age

Count Col umn %

Overall

72 91% 106 93% 102 92% 90 93% 163 93% 206 92%

7 9% 8 7% 8 8% 7 7% 13 7% 17 8%

79 100% 114 100% 110 100% 97 100% 176 100% 224 100%

Yes

No

Total

Count Col umn %

18 - 34

Count Col umn %

35 - 49

Count Col umn %

50 - 64

Count Col umn %

65+ years and

over

Count Col umn %

Mal e

Count Col umn %

Female



October 2010 63

Community Activities


Table 6.10.5

Table 6.10.6

128 56% 96 57% 224 56%

102 44% 73 43% 176 44%

230 100% 169 100% 400 100%

Yes

No

Total

Count Col umn %

Town

Count Col umn %

Vill age

Count Col umn %

Overall

34 42% 71 62% 62 56% 58 59% 98 56% 126 56%

46 58% 43 38% 48 44% 39 41% 78 44% 98 44%

79 100% 114 100% 110 100% 97 100% 176 100% 224 100%

Yes

No

Total

Count Col umn %

18 - 34

Count Col umn %

35 - 49

Count Col umn %

50 - 64

Count Col umn %

65+ years and

over

Count Col umn %

Mal e

Count Col umn %

Female



October 2010 64

Response Timeliness

Q9. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is very dissatisfied and 5 is very satisfied, how satisfied are you with the timeliness

of Council response to:

Table 6.11.1

Satisfaction 18 - 34 35 - 49 50 - 64 65+ Male Female Town Village Overall

Roads 2.59 2.49 2.57 2.63 2.53 2.59 2.61 2.50 2.56

Drainage 3.09 2.98 2.96 3.12 3.08 2.99 3.18 2.83 3.03

Water supply 3.88 3.82 4.12 4.01 3.93 3.98 4.01 3.87 3.96

Sewerage 3.84 3.80 3.87 4.05 3.86 3.91 4.03 3.63 3.89

= A significantly higher level of satisfaction (by group)

= A significantly lower level of satisfaction (by group)


Table 6.11.2

Nb: Some respondents did not answer

71 19% 102 27% 138 36% 62 16% 8 2% 380 100%

38 11% 43 12% 166 47% 87 25% 21 6% 355 100%

12 3% 9 3% 70 19% 163 45% 109 30% 363 100%

13 4% 15 4% 68 20% 138 42% 99 30% 332 100%

Roads

Drainage

Water supply

Sewerage

Count Row %

Very

dissatis f ied

Count Row %

Diss at isf ied

Count Row %

Neither

Count Row %

Sati sf ied

Count Row %

Very sati sf ied

Count Row %

Total

Appendix C

Questionnaire


Community Priorities Survey

October 2010 1

WINGECARRIBEE SHIRE COUNCIL - COMMUNITY SURVEY TEMPLATE 2010

Good morning/afternoon/evening, my name is ____________________ from Micromex Research and we are

conducting a survey on behalf of Wingecarribee Council on a range of local issues. The survey will take about 10

minutes, would you be able to assist us please?

QA1. Before we start I would like to check whether you or an immediate family member works for Wingecarribee

Shire Council?

Yes O No O (If yes, terminate survey)

QA2. Which town or village do you live in/near?

Towns - 60%

Mittagong

Bowral

Moss Vale

Villages - 40%

Avoca Joadja

Balmoral Kangaloon

Berrima New Berrima

Bundanoon Penrose

Burrawang Robertson

Canyonleigh Sutton Forest

Colo Vale Wildes Meadow

Exeter Wingello

High Range Yerrinboo

Hill Top

Section A – Contact with Council

I’d like you now to please think specifically about your experiences with Council


Yes O No O (If no, go to 4a)

Q3a. Thinking of the last time you made contact with Council staff was it by:

Phone O Mail O Email O In person O

Q3b. What was the nature of your enquiry? Prompt

Waste and clean up services O

Community services (youth, children, aged care) O

Roads, footpaths and parks etc O

Rates – land or water O

Building and development approval O

Town planning and Zoning O

Other (please specify) O ………………………………………………..



October 2010 2

Q3c. How satisfied were you with the way your contact was handled? Prompt

Very satisfied Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied

O O O O O

Q3d. (If dissatisfied or very dissatisfied), how could the way this contact was handled have been improved?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Q4a. How satisfied are you with the level of communication Council currently has with the community? Prompt


O O O O O

Q4b. (If dissatisfied or very dissatisfied), how do you think Council could improve its communication?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………



October 2010 3

Section B – Importance of and satisfaction with Council services

Still thinking specifically about Wingecarribee Shire Council,

Q5. In this section I will read out different Council services or facilities. For each of these could you please indicate

that which best describes your opinion of the importance of the following services/facilities to you, and in the

second part, your level of satisfaction with the performance of that service/facility

The scale is from 1 to 5, where 1 = low importance and 5 = high importance and where 1 = low satisfaction

and 5 = high satisfaction.

Note: All attributes rated on importance, with attributes rated a 4 or 5 in importance they are then rated on Satisfaction.

Importance Satisfaction

Low High Low High

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

1. Revitalisation / beautification of town and

village centres as well as the surrounding

areas O O O O O O O O O O O

2. Protecting Heritage values & Buildings O O O O O O O O O O O

3. Provision & maintenance of local parks

and gardens O O O O O O O O O O O

4. Green waste collection O O O O O O O O O O O

5. The Resource Recovery Centre

(RCC/local tip) O O O O O O O O O O O

6. Dog control O O O O O O O O O O O

7. Domestic garbage collection O O O O O O O O O O O

8. The cleanliness and functionality of

public toilets O O O O O O O O O O O

9. Festivals and events O O O O O O O O O O O

10. Community safety/crime prevention O O O O O O O O O O O

11. Support for aged persons O O O O O O O O O O O

12. Support for people with a disability O O O O O O O O O O O

13. Support for youth O O O O O O O O O O O

14. Support for the aboriginal community O O O O O O O O O O O

15. Support for local business and employment O O O O O O O O O O O

16. Availability of car parking in the town and

village centres O O O O O O O O O O O

17. Cycle paths and walking tracks O O O O O O O O O O O

18. Local traffic management (i.e. roundabouts,

line marking, signage, traffic lights) O O O O O O O O O O O

19. Availability of and access to public transport

(i.e. bus shelters, footpaths, bus routes) O O O O O O O O O O O

20. Support for tourism O O O O O O O O O O O



October 2010 4

Importance Satisfaction

Low High Low High

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

21. Condition of local roads O O O O O O O O O O O

22. Providing adequate drainage O O O O O O O O O O O

23. The provision and quality of footpaths O O O O O O O O O O O

24. Provision & maintenance of swimming pools O O O O O O O O O O O

25. Provision and operation of libraries O O O O O O O O O O O

26. Provision and maintenance of playgrounds O O O O O O O O O O O

27. Provision and maintenance of sporting

facilities O O O O O O O O O O O

28. Provision and maintenance of community

halls/facilities O O O O O O O O O O O

29. Support for community environmental

initiatives O O O O O O O O O O O

30. Restoration of natural bushland O O O O O O O O O O O

31. Healthy, natural urban streams and creeks

but not rivers O O O O O O O O O O O

32. Encouraging recycling O O O O O O O O O O O

33. Encouraging waste reduction initiatives O O O O O O O O O O O

34. Managing development and growth O O O O O O O O O O O

35. Enforcement of development and building

regulations O O O O O O O O O O O

36. Opportunities to participate in Council

decision making O O O O O O O O O O O

37. Council provision of information to residents O O O O O O O O O O O

38. Town water quality (taste, smell and colour) O O O O O O O O O O O



October 2010 5

Section C – Overall satisfaction with Council and the local area


issues, but across all responsibility areas? Prompt


O O O O O

Q6b. Why do you say that?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Q6c. Overall, how would you rate Council’s image within the community? Prompt

Very good Good Neither Poor Very poor

O O O O O

Q6d. Thinking generally about living in the Wingecarribee area, what do you feel is the best thing about living here?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Section D1 – Priority Areas

Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

Q7a. I feel a part of my local community

Agree O Disagree O Don’t know O

Q7b. I feel there are adequate support networks available to me if I need them


Q7c. I feel there are benefits to living in a community with people of diverse ages, backgrounds and cultures


Q7d. I feel that there is an adequate number of public toilets in the Wingecarribee Shire


Q7e. I am satisfied with the current level of water pressure I get when using town water

Agree O Disagree O Don’t know/on tank water O



October 2010 6

Please answer yes or not for the following questions.


Yes O No O

Q8b. Do you believe that living in the Shire you have the opportunity to participate in recreational and sporting

activities?

Yes O No O


Yes O No O

Section D2 – Response Timeliness

Q9. On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is very dissatisfied and 5 is very satisfied, how satisfied are you with the

timeliness of Council response to:

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

1 2 3 4 5

Roads O O O O O

Drainage O O O O O

Water supply O O O O O

Sewerage O O O O O

Section E – Demographic & Profiling questions

Q10a. Please stop me when I read out your age group.

18 – 34 O

35 – 49 O

50 – 64 O

65+ years and over O

Q10b. Were you born In Australia or overseas?

Australia O

Overseas O

Q11. Which of the following best describes your current employment status? Prompt

Currently in full time paid employment O

Currently in part time paid employment (at least 10 hours a week) O

Studying at school, TAFE or university O

Retired from paid employment O

Currently looking for paid employment O

Household duties O

Other (please specify) O ………………………………………………..

Refused/Can't Say O

Q12. Which of the following best describes the house where you are currently living?

I/We own/are currently buying this property O

I/We currently rent this property O



October 2010 7

Q13. Which of the following best describes your status?

Living at home with parents O

Single with no children O

Married/de facto with no children O

Married/de facto with children under 12 O

Married/de facto with children over 12 O

Married/defacto with children both under and over 12 O

Single parent with children under 12 O

Single parent with children over 12 O

Single parent with children both under and over 12 O

Q14. How long have you lived in the local area? Prompt

Up to 2 years 2 – 5 years 6 – 10 years 11 – 20 years More than 20 years

O O O O O

In the future after we analyse the results from this research we may be conducting resident focus groups to further

investigate residents’ opinions.

Q15a. Would you be interested in participating in these focus groups?

Yes O No O (If no go to end)

Q15b. (If yes), what are your contact details?

Name ………………………………………………. Telephone …………………………………………

Email ……………………………………………….

Q15c. Would you prefer an afternoon or evening?

Afternoon O

Evening O

Thank you. We will be randomly selecting participants to ensure we get a good cross-section of the community. And

will get in touch with you if we do conduct the next stage of research.

Thank you very much for your time, enjoy the rest of your evening.

Q16. Gender (determine by voice):

Male O Female O

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE