2015 Citizen Satisfaction Survey Draft Report February 20, 2015

Transcription

1 2015 Citizen Satisfaction Survey Draft Report February 20, 2015

2 2015 Citizen Satisfaction Survey Report TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OF FINDINGS STUDY BACKGROUND METHODOLOGY SURVEY POPULATION AND DATA COLLECTION DATA ANALYSIS MUNICIPAL COMPARISON STUDY FINDINGS PERCEIVED QUALITY OF LIFE IN LEDUC OVERALL PERCEPTIONS Net Promoter Score SATISFACTION WITH CITY SERVICES OVERALL IMPORTANCE AND SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS COMMUNICATIONS WEBSITE PROPERTY TAXES ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ANNEXATION RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENT

3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Perceived Quality of Life and Overall Perceptions When asked to rate the overall quality of life in Leduc, the vast majority of the respondents (97%) rated quality of life as good, very good, or excellent, consistent with 97% in 2013; Surveyed citizens most frequently mentioned Leduc s recreation facilities (32%), Leduc s geographic location (27%), and the City s small size (25%) as the factors contributing most to a high quality of life in Leduc; Nearly half of the respondents (49%) stated they were likely (9 or 10 out of 10) to recommend the City of Leduc as a place to live to their family and friends, while 41%, were moderately likely to recommend Leduc (7 or 8 out of 10); o From the information above, a Net Promoter Score was calculated, a metric which subtracts the City s detractors (1 to 6 out of 10) from the City s promoters (9 or 10 out of 10) to arrive at a net promotion score. Leduc s net promotion score was 39%, comparable to 2013 results; When asked to identify Leduc s most frequently mentioned strengths and unique features, location was mentioned by 34% of respondents, similar to 2013 findings. Respondents also frequently mentioned the good recreation facilities (25%), nice parks, pathways and multi-ways (19%), and a small town atmosphere (16%); When asked to rate their level of pride in being a resident of the City of Leduc, 85% provided a positive rating (4 or 5 out of 5), consistent with 2013 (85%); When asked to share one piece of advice they would give to Leduc City Council and Administration in order to improve, 9% indicated they would like City Council and Administration to listen more to resident concerns, feedback and input followed by more fiscal responsibility (7%) and lower taxes (7%). It is important to note that 26% of respondents were unsure or did not provide a response; and When asked how familiar they were with the City of Leduc s Strategic Plan, over half of the respondents (52%) were not at all familiar with the City of Leduc s Strategic Plan, while 42% were somewhat familiar and 6% were very familiar. Satisfaction with City Services In terms of specific services, respondents were most satisfied (4 or 5 out of 5) with multi-way trails (88%, mean=4.45) and the Leduc Recreation Centre and other recreation facilities (87%; mean=4.38); Respondents most frequently indicated that the quality of service provided by the City of Leduc has remained the same over the past 12 months (78%, an increase from 74% in 2013); 16% believed that the quality of services increased (a significant decrease from 30% in 2013), and 5% believed that the quality of service had decreased (up 1% from 4% in 2013); and 3

4 The majority of respondents (81%, a slight decrease from 84% in 2013) were either very (27%) or somewhat satisfied (55%) with the services and programs provided by the City of Leduc. Overall Importance of City Services Given both satisfaction and importance ratings for various factors impacting Leduc s residents, areas of improvement and key strengths were established; o o The primary areas of improvement for Leduc included summer road maintenance and winter road maintenance; Respondents provided seven (7) key strengths regarding Leduc s services, including: Fire response services; Emergency medical services; Water and sewer services; The Leduc Recreation Centre and other Recreation Facilities; Garbage collection, curbside recycling and organics services, and the recycling depot; Contracted police services (RCMP); and Parks and playgrounds. Concerning Leduc staff, 84% of respondents agreed (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5) that staff were polite, (a significant increase from 78% in 2013), followed by 72% who indicated staff provided a response within a reasonable time. In contrast, only 62% of respondents agreed that staff were able to complete business in a single call. Communications City planning (14%), budget and tax spending (12%), and leisure and recreation (10%) were the most frequently mentioned types of information desired by residents of Leduc; When taking into consideration all sources of information mentioned by respondents, the Leduc Representative (65%, a slight decrease from 70% in 2013), the City website ( (39%, a significant increase from 32% in 2013), and direct mail to home (12%, a significant decrease from 30% in 2013) were mentioned as the most common sources residents use to learn about information regarding the City of Leduc; Similar to 2013, advertising in the Leduc Representative (88%) was deemed the most effective method of communication, followed by portable road signs (86%); Just under two-thirds of respondents (63%) provided ratings of 4 (43%) or 5 (20%) out of 5 with regards to the quality of communication; 4

5 When asked to rate their overall satisfaction with the frequency of communication provided by the City of Leduc, 55% of the respondents provided ratings of 4 (37%) or 5 (18%) out of 5; and Nearly half of the respondents (48%) provided favorable ratings (4 or 5 out of 5), overall, with the City s efforts to consult with citizens regarding important issues in Leduc. Website Respondents were asked if they had visited the Leduc website in the past six (6) months. Sixty-three percent (63%) of the respondents replied that they had, while 37% had not; and Of those who visited the website (n=252), 75% were satisfied, providing ratings of 4 (48%) or 5 (26%) out of 5. Property Taxes When thinking about the portion of municipal property taxes that pay for City services, 75% of respondents (consistent with 2013 results) indicated they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars; o Respondents who felt that they only received fair or poor value for their tax dollars (n=89) most often reported that taxes are too high (24%); and Respondents most frequently mentioned they were supportive of increasing taxes to maintain all existing infrastructure and services (39%, comparable to 2013 results). Nineteen percent (19%) of respondents specified they were supportive of increasing taxes to fund growth needs, infrastructure maintenance and enhance services, consistent with 2013 results. Environmental Initiatives Just over nine out of ten respondents (92%, comparable to 91% in 2013) reported that they were familiar with Leduc s environmental initiatives, such as curbside recycling; o o Public Involvement Of those respondents who were either somewhat or very familiar with Leduc s environmental initiatives (n=364), 79% (a significant increase from 68% reported in 2013) rated their level of satisfaction with curbside recycling as 4 (35%) or 5 (44%) out of 5; and Of those respondents who were either somewhat or very familiar with Leduc s environmental initiatives (n=364), three-quarters of the respondents (75%, a significant increase from 60% reported in 2013) rated their level of satisfaction with curbside organics collection as 4 (29%) or 5 (46%) out of 5. Over three-quarters of the respondents (78%) were not aware of any public involvement processes conducted by the City of Leduc, while 20% were aware; The majority of respondents (86%) did not participate in any public involvement processes, while 13% did participate; and 5

6 Fifty-eight percent (58%) of the respondents did not indicate anything preventing them from participating, while 40% did. Annexation The vast majority of respondents (95%) were aware of the proposed annexation, while 5% were unaware; Respondents were asked if they were aware of the tax sharing agreement the City of Leduc has with Leduc County with regard to the Edmonton International Airport that currently represents 7% of the City s tax base revenue and is expected to increase to 10% within the next few years. Sixty-three percent (63%) of the respondents were aware of this, while 37% were unaware; Eighty-six percent (86%) of the respondents said they somewhat or strongly opposed the proposed annexation while 8% either somewhat support (6%) or strongly support (2%) the proposed annexation; o o Those who opposed the proposed annexation (ratings of 1 or 2 out of 5; n=349) most frequently stated that taxes would increase (68%), while 15% stated they were against the annexation proposal, in general; and Those who supported the proposed annexation (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5; n=32) were asked why they provided this response. Half of the respondents (50%) stated they did not have any concerns. 6

7 1.0 STUDY BACKGROUND The City of Leduc is dedicated to listening to the opinions and perceptions of citizens to ensure that satisfaction with various aspects of living in the community are maintained or increased. Consequently, the City of Leduc commissioned Banister Research & Consulting Inc. (Banister Research) to conduct the 2015 Citizen Satisfaction Survey. The findings from this survey will provide insight to the City of Leduc into the perceptions and opinions of residents across a number of issues including: Overall quality of life in the City including an assessment of how well the City is managed; Issues of importance facing the City; Satisfaction with, and importance of, various services and facilities offered; Value of property taxes, including perceptions on quality of service received; City communications; and The proposed annexation. This report outlines the results for the 2015 survey of Leduc residents and includes comparisons to the 2010, 2012 and 2013 survey results to determine, where appropriate, if there have been shifts in the perceptions and opinions of City of Leduc residents. 2.0 METHODOLOGY The survey instrument was developed in close consultation with the City of Leduc. The 2015 questionnaire was based on the 2013 questionnaire with minor modifications to include questions on the proposed annexation. A copy of the final questionnaire is provided in Appendix A. 2.1 Survey Population and Data Collection Telephone interviews were conducted from January 16 th to 30 th, Banister Research completed a total of 400 telephone interviews with Leduc citizens 18 years of age or older. City-wide results provide a margin of error no greater than 4.8% at the 95% confidence level or 19 times out of 20. The following table outlines the margin of error for various sample sizes, at the 95% confidence level for a binomial distribution with a 50:50 male-to-female ratio and based on a population of 10,000 or more Sample Size Estimated Sampling Error % % % 7

8 The sampling strategy involved randomly dialing phone numbers from the most recent telephone directory for the City of Leduc. The first attempts to reach each listing were made during the evening or on weekends. Subsequent attempts were made at a different time on the following day. The following table presents the results of the final call attempts. Using the call summary standard established by the Market Research & Intelligence Association, there was an 11% response rate and 72% refusal rate. These figures do not necessarily measure respondent interest in the subject area. Summary of Final Call Attempts Call Classification: Number of Calls: Completed Interviews 400 Busy/No answer/answering machine 1945 Respondents unavailable 21 Refusals 1,050 Fax/Modem/Business/Not-in-Service/Wrong number 395 Terminated/Language barrier 22 Disqualified/quota full 167 Total 4, Data Analysis Data analysis included cross-tabulation, whereby the frequency and percentage distribution of the results for each question were broken down based on respondent characteristics and responses (e.g., gender, household composition, etc.). Results were weighted by age and gender to ensure appropriate representation of the City of Leduc. Statistical analysis included a Z-test to determine if there were significant differences in responses between respondent subgroups. Results were reported as statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. The Selected Sub-Segment Findings portions of the report present selected findings from the cross tabulation analysis. Tabulations of the detailed data tables have been provided under separate cover. The reader should note that any discrepancies between charts, graphs or tables are due to rounding of the numbers. 8

9 2.3 Municipal Comparison Where applicable and appropriate, the findings from a number of other satisfaction surveys from comparable communities are included in the report. These Alberta municipalities included: Airdrie; Spruce Grove; Beaumont; Fort Saskatchewan; St. Albert; Lethbridge; and Red Deer. The findings from resident surveys conducted in each of the communities were examined. In instances in which Banister Research did not conduct the research, efforts were made to secure the survey findings. All comparative findings presented in this report are intended to provide some context for the City of Leduc when considering the findings from their own resident survey. 9

10 3.0 STUDY FINDINGS Figure 1 Overall Quality of Life in the City of Leduc Results of the study are presented as they relate to the specific topic areas addressed by the survey. The reader should note, when reading the report that the term significant refers to statistical significance. 3.1 Perceived Quality of Life in Leduc When asked to rate the overall quality of life in Leduc, the vast majority of the respondents (97%) rated quality of life as good, very good, or excellent. Only 3% felt that the overall quality of life was either fair or poor. See Figure 1, right. Selected Sub-Segment Findings Those who were moderately or very likely to recommend Leduc as a place to live [ratings of 7 to 10 out of 10] (99% and 100%) were significantly more likely to have rated the quality of life in Leduc as good, very good, or excellent versus 72% of those who were unlikely to recommend Leduc [ratings of 6 or less]. Excellent Very Good n=400 Municipal Comparison Respondents to other municipal surveys also provided high ratings for the quality of life in their communities. Like Leduc, the majority of municipalities reported quality of life ratings in the mid-ninety percent range. Good Fair Poor 3% 3% 4% <1% 0% 0% 1% 18% 21% 22% 18% 31% 27% 28% 26% 47% 49% 47% 53% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

11 Respondents were asked to specify what they considered to be the three (3) most significant factors contributing to a high quality of life in the City of Leduc. Table 1, below and continued to the right, outlines respondent comments based on all, or total, mentions. Most frequently mentioned factors mentioned as contributing to a high quality of life include recreation facilities (32%), Leduc s geographic location (27%), and the City s small size (25%, a significant increase from 18% reported in 2013). Refer to detailed data tables, under a separate cover, for a complete list of factors mentioned. Table 1 In your opinion, what would you say are the three (3) most significant factors contributing to a high quality of life in the City of Leduc? TOTAL MENTIONS Percent of Respondents (n=400)* Recreation facilities/leduc Recreation Centre Location /close to Edmonton/airport/Nisku Size/is small Parks/multi-way path system Leduc has everything you need/all the amenities Good shopping *Multiple responses Table 1 (cont d) Percent of Respondents (n=400)* Good services It is safe/low crime rate Small town atmosphere Friendly people Good schools Good snow removal/road maintenance Well-kept city/clean/sidewalks are clean Other (less than 5%) Don t know *Multiple responses 11

12 Respondents were then asked to indicate the three (3) most significant factors contributing to a low quality of life in the City of Leduc, or areas where there are opportunities for improvement. Table 2, right, details all, or total, mentions made. Traffic congestion and speeding (24%) were the most frequently mentioned factors, up 2% from 2013, followed a lack of variety of businesses, shopping, and restaurants (11%) and crime, drugs and vandalism (11%, a significant increase from 7% reported in 2013). Eleven percent (11%, a significant increase from 6% in 2013) also mentioned high taxes. Table 2 What would you say are the three (3) most significant factors contributing to a low quality of life in the City of Leduc or where are there opportunities for improvement? TOTAL MENTIONS Percent of Respondents (n=400)* Traffic congestion/speeding Lack of variety of businesses/shopping/ restaurants Crime/drugs/vandalism High taxes Noisy/airplane noise/traffic noise Snow removal/street cleaning Lack of public transportation/bus system Increase in City size/population/urban sprawl Need better education/more schools/better locations of schools None/nothing Other (less than 5% of responses) Don t know *Multiple responses 12

13 3.2 Overall Perceptions Next, all respondents were asked a series of general questions relating to their overall perceptions of Leduc. Selected Sub-Segment Findings (cont d) Those who indicated that they receive good, very good, or excellent value for their tax dollars (82% versus 58% of those who feel that they receive fair or poor value). Nearly half (49%) of the respondents stated that they were likely (9 or 10 out of 10) to recommend the City of Leduc as a place to live to their family and friends (up 5% from 2013), while 41%, were moderately likely to recommend Leduc (7 or 8 out of 10). Only 10% stated they were unlikely (0 to 6 out of 10) to recommend Leduc as a place to live. See Figure 2, right. Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to have indicated that they are likely to recommend Leduc as a place to live (ratings of 8 to 10 out of 10) included: Females (81% versus 71% of males); Those who have lived in Leduc for less than 5 years (90% versus 73% of those who have lived in Leduc 5 to 14 years, and Figure 2 75% of those who have lived in Leduc more than 15 years); Those with seniors in their household (83% versus 73% of those without seniors); Those who rent their home (92% versus 75% of those who own); and Figure 2 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% n=400 How likely are you to recommend Leduc as a place to live? 49% 46% 50% 41% 43% 36% 10% 11% 14% Very Likely (9 or 10) Moderately Likely (7 or 8) Unlikely (0 to 6)

14 3.2.1 Net Promoter Score Developed by Satmetrix, Bain & Company, and Fred Reichheld, the Net Promoter concept was first popularized through Reichheld's book The Ultimate Question and has since been embraced worldwide as the standard for measuring and improving customer and citizen loyalty. Net Promoter is both a loyalty metric and a discipline for using respondent feedback to fuel growth. The Net Promoter Score, or NPS, is a straightforward metric that holds companies or organizations like the City of Leduc accountable for how they treat who they intend to serve. It has gained popularity thanks to its simplicity and its linkage to growth. In this case, employees at all levels of the organization understand it, opening the door to citizen-centric change and improved City performance. NPS is based on the fundamental perspective that respondents can be divided into three categories: Promoters, Passives, and Detractors. Responses are provided on a 1- to 10-point rating scale and are categorized as follows: Promoters (scores of 9-10) are loyal enthusiasts who will refer others, fueling growth. Passives (scores of 7-8) are satisfied but unenthusiastic citizens who are less likely to refer others to live in Leduc than promoters. Detractors (scores of 0-6) are unhappy citizens who can damage your image and impede growth through negative word-of-mouth. The Net Promoter Score (NPS) is calculated by taking the percentage of respondents who are Promoters and subtracting the percentage who are Detractors. For more information about the Net Promoter Score Metric, your score and the scores of other global businesses, please refer to the website The net promotion score classifies respondents likely to promote Leduc as a place to live (9 or 10 out of 10) as promoters, neutral respondents (7 or 8 out of 10) as passives, and unlikely respondents (0 to 6 out of 10) as detractors, where the goal is to have more promoters than detractors. The score is calculated by subtracting the proportion of detractors from the proportion of promoters. The ratings provided result in a 2015 net promotion score of 39% (49% promoters 10% detractors), comparable to the net promotion score of 35%, as reported in 2013 (46% promoters - 11% detractors). 14

15 Respondents were asked to indicate what they considered to be Leduc s strengths and unique features. Location, being close to Edmonton, the airport and Nisku were mentioned by 34% of respondents, similar to 2013 findings. Respondents also frequently mentioned the good recreation facilities (25%), nice parks, pathways and multi-ways (19%), and a small town atmosphere (16%). See Table 3, right, for more responses. Table 3 What do you consider Leduc s strengths and unique features? Percent of Respondents* (n=400) Location/close to Edmonton/airport/ Nisku Lots of recreation/good recreation facilities Nice parks/pathways/multi-ways Small town atmosphere Is a small town Good shopping/restaurants Leduc has everything you need/amenities are close Friendly people Family orientated/family activities/ activities for children Community togetherness/spirit/events Clean/well maintained/low pollution Good local government/city is well-run Nothing Other (less than 4% of respondents) Don t know *Multiple responses 15

16 When asked to rate their level of pride in being a resident of the City of Leduc, eighty-five percent (85%) provided a positive rating (4 or 5 out of 5), consistent with 2013 (85%). Thirteen percent (13%) provided a neutral rating (3 out of 5) and 3% provided a negative rating (1 or 2 out of 5). See Figure 3, below. Figure 3 Very Proud (5) (4) Pride in Being a Resident of Leduc 49% 46% 45% 41% 36% 40% 38% 43% 13% (3) 13% 13% 14% Selected Sub-Segment 2015 Mean Findings = 4.30 out of 5 1% 2% Respondent (2) subgroups 2% significantly 2013 more likely Mean to = have 4.28 a out high of level 5 of pride in being a resident 1% of Leduc (ratings of or 5 Mean out of = 5) 4.23 included: out of 5 2% 2010 Mean = 4.22 out of 5 Not at all Proud (1) Females 1% (91% versus 78% of males); 2% Those with seniors in their household (90% versus 82% of those <1% Don't Know without 0% seniors); 0% Those 0% who are moderately or very likely to recommend Leduc as a place 0% to live 20% [ratings of 40% 7 to 10 out 60% of 10] (78% 80% and 97% 100% versus 55% of those who were unlikely [ratings of 6 or less]); and Those who indicated that they receive good, very good, or n=400 excellent value for their tax dollars (90% versus 66% of those who feel that they receive fair or poor value). Reasons for Lack of Pride* Reasons indicated by respondents that provided a negative rating (1 or 2 out of 5; n=10) included: Does not believe in pride/being proud (in general) (n=3); Personal/private reasons (n=1); Lack of City identity (n=1); Pay too much taxes for the services received (n=1); The City is not providing adequate services (n=1); and Crime is bad and there is not enough police officers (n=1). *Multiple responses 16

17 Respondents were then asked to indicate what they considered to be the most important priority facing the City of Leduc Council today. Just over one-fifth (21%) indicated the City of Edmonton annexation proposal (a new issue since the previous survey), followed by managing population growth, development, and maintaining a small town atmosphere (14%, a significant decrease from 26% reported in 2013). Fourteen percent (14%) also indicated keeping taxes low as a main priority. It is also worth noting that 16% of respondents were unable to provide a response. See Table 4, for more responses. Table 4 What is the most important priority facing the City of Leduc Council today? Percent of Respondents (n=400) City of Edmonton annexation proposal Managing population growth/ development/maintaining small town atmosphere Keeping taxes low Keeping up/maintaining infrastructure Road maintenance/services/ development Budget control/spending Traffic control and improvement Education/more schools Maintaining high quality of life/keeping residents happy Maintaining services/amenities Affordable housing Creating more employment opportunities 2-1 Other (less than 2% of responses) Don t know

18 Respondents were asked to share one piece of advice they would give to Leduc City Council and Administration in order to improve. Nine percent (9%) indicated they would like City Council and Administration to listen more to resident concerns, feedback and input followed by more fiscal responsibility (7%) and lower taxes (7%). It is important to note that 26% of respondents were unsure or did not provide a response. See Table 5, below and continued on the right, for more responses. Table 5 What one piece of advice would you give Leduc City Council and Administration in order to improve? Listen more to resident concerns/feedback/input Percent of respondents (n=400) Be more fiscally responsible with budget/control unnecessary spending 7 Lower taxes/keep taxes low 7 Improve road infrastructure 6 Improve City planning/project development/need a better long-term vision Maintainer/manage/keep up with City population growth/development Table 5 (cont d) Improve level of communication with residents/provide more information Do not allow City of Edmonton to annex land/keep Edmonton out of Leduc Improve public transportation/more bus routes/extended hours of service Percent of respondents (n=400) Nothing 6 Other ( less than 3% of responses) 26 Refuse/Don t Know

19 Respondents were also asked how familiar they were with the City of Leduc s Strategic Plan. This question is also a new addition to the Citizen Satisfaction Survey. Over half of the respondents (52%) were not at all familiar with the City of Leduc s Strategic Plan, while 42% were somewhat familiar and 6% were very familiar. See Figure 4, below. Figure 4 Familiarity with the City of Leduc's Strategic Plan 3.3 Satisfaction with City Services Respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction with Leduc services and facilities on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being very dissatisfied and 5 being very satisfied. City services for which 80% or more of respondents were satisfied (4 or 5 out of 5) included the Leduc Recreation Centre and other recreational facilities (87% of respondents were satisfied; mean rating 4.38 out of 5), multi-way trails (88%; mean rating 4.45), and parks and playgrounds (84%; mean rating 4.26). Very familiar Somewhat familiar Not at all familiar 6% 42% 52% Services for which less than 50% of respondents were satisfied (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5) included permit and inspection services (23% were satisfied; mean rating 3.26 out of 5), counselling and family services (43%; mean rating 3.79), transit services, including C-Line and Leduc Assisted Transportation Service (LATS) (44%; mean rating 3.56), property assessment and taxation (37%; mean rating 3.26), bylaw enforcement (43%; mean rating 3.33), arts, culture and heritage programs (47%; mean rating 3.69). Don't Know <1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% n=400 *New to the 2015 questionnaire Figures 5 through 7, on the following pages, demonstrate respondents level of satisfaction with each of 21 services offered by the City of Leduc. Services are arranged in decreasing order of mean satisfaction rating. 19

20 Figure 5 Mulitway Trails Leduc Recreation Centre and other recreation facilities Parks and Playgrounds Fire Response Services Contracted Police Services (RCMP) Water and Sewer Services Beautification of Public Property Recreational Programs Sports Fields and Outdoor Rinks Public Library Satisfaction with City Services 88% 85% 88% 89% 87% 86% 88% 84% 83% 80% 83% 79% 79% 79% 76% 79% 79% 77% 80% 78% 81% 79% 74% 77% 77% 71% 85% 77% 78% 82% 77% 75% 70% 75% 76% 75% 73% 73% 74% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% n=400 Percent of respondents who satisfied (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5)

21 Figure 6 Satisfaction with City Services (cont.) Garbage Collection, Curbside Recycling, Organic Services and Recycling Depot 60% 71% 81% 89% Community Events Produced by the City of Leduc 70% 70% 67% 76% Emergency Medical Services 68% 78% 73% 77% Summer Road Maintenance, Including Pothole Repair 64% 63% 66% 73% Winter Road Maintenance, Including Snow Removal 48% 59% 67% 67% Arts, Culture and Heritage Programs 47% 51% 51% 51% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% n=400 Percent of respondents who satisfied (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5)

22 Figure 7 Transit Services, Including LATS Satisfaction with City Services (cont.) 44% 42% 44% FCSS Subsidized Counselling 43% 39% 43% Bylaw Enforcement 43% 43% 41% 47% Property Assessment and Taxation 37% 43% 42% 41% Permit and Inspection Services 23% 29% 27% 29% n=400 Percent of respondents who satisfied (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

23 Table 6 Satisfaction with City Services Mean (out of 5) Multi-way Trails Leduc Recreation Centre and Other Recreation Facilities Fire Response Services Public Library Parks and Playgrounds Recreational Programs Water and Sewer Services Contracted Police Services (RCMP) Sports Fields and Outdoor Rinks Emergency Medical Services Beautification of Public Property Garbage Collection, Curbside Recycling, Organics Services and Recycling Depot Community Events Produced by the City of Leduc FCSS Subsidized Counseling Summer Road Maintenance Arts, Culture and Heritage Programs Winter Road Maintenance, Including Snow Removal Leduc Transit, Including LATS Bylaw Enforcement Property Assessment and Taxation Permit and Inspection Services

24 Selected Sub-Segment Findings Selected Sub-Segment Findings (cont d) Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to Respondent have been subgroups satisfied significantly more likely to have been satisfied (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5) with the RCMP included: (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5) with emergency medical services included: Those who have lived in Leduc for more than 15 Those years (84% who have lived in Leduc for more than 15 years (75% versus 71% of those who have lived in Leduc between versus 561% and of 14 those who have lived in Leduc between 5 and 14 years); and years, and 53% who have lived in Leduc for less than 5 years); Those who were very likely to recommend Leduc Those as a place aged to 35 to 54 (65%) or 55 and older (76% versus 50% of live [ratings of 9 to 10 out of 10] (85% versus 64% those of those aged who 18 to 34); were moderately likely [ratings of 7 to 8 out of 10]). Those without children in their household (72% versus 62% of those with children); Reasons for Dissatisfaction* Those with seniors in their household (78% versus 64% of those without seniors); Respondents who were dissatisfied (ratings of 1 or 2 out of 5) with the RCMP (n=18)** stated why they were dissatisfied. Responses Those included: who are not employed full or part-time (75% versus 64% of those who are); and They need more officers (n=9); Those whose total annual household income was less than Unhappy with results of complaint (n=3); $50,000 (83% versus 65% of those whose income was between Give out too many tickets (n=3); $50,000 and less than $150,000, and 59% whose income was $150,000 or greater). Response time is too long (n=3); Reasons for Dissatisfaction* They ignore the city/community (n=2); Respondents and who were dissatisfied (ratings of 1 or 2 out of 5) with Single mentions (n=3). emergency medical services (n=19)** stated why they were dissatisfied. Responses included: *Multiple responses **Use caution interpreting results when n<30 Long wait times (n=13); Not enough staff available (n=3); Need more facilities available (n=3); and Single mentions (n=3). *Multiple responses **Use caution interpreting results when n<30 24

25 Selected Sub-Segment Findings (cont d) Selected Sub-Segment Findings (cont d) Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to have been satisfied (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5) with fire response services included: Those aged 35 to 54 (81%) or 55 and older (82% versus 65% of those aged 18 to 34); and Those who were very likely to recommend Leduc as a place to live [ratings of 9 to 10 out of 10] (83% versus 73% of those who were moderately likely [ratings of 7 to 8 out of 10]). Reasons for Dissatisfaction (cont d)* Respondents who were dissatisfied (ratings of 1 or 2 out of 5) with fire services (n=6)** stated why they were dissatisfied. Responses included: Staff are overpaid (n=3); Service exceeds the needs of the community/over-serviced (n=2); and Single mentions (n=2). *Multiple responses **Use caution interpreting results when n<30 Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to have been satisfied (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5) with bylaw enforcement included: Those who have lived in Leduc for less than 5 years (60% versus 41% of those who have lived in Leduc between 5 and 14 years, and 42% who have lived in Leduc for 15 years or more); Those who rent their home (73% versus 41% of those who own); and Those who were moderately or very likely to recommend Leduc as a place to live [ratings of 7 to 10 out of 10] (41% and 50% versus 24% of those who were unlikely [ratings of 6 or less]). Reasons for Dissatisfaction (cont d)* Respondents who were dissatisfied (ratings of 1 or 2 out of 5) with bylaw enforcement (n=73) stated why they were dissatisfied. Responses included: There is a lack of by-law enforcement (28%); Too many vehicles are left on the streets (11%); Bylaw enforcement is not visible (11%); Poor animal control/too many stray animals (10%); Unhappy with photo radar (9%); Too much enforcement of bylaws/ticket without warning (9%); Many people do not shovel their walkways (6%); Poor service, in general (6%); and Other (less than 5% of responses) (20%). *Multiple responses 25

26 Selected Sub-Segment Findings (cont d) Selected Sub-Segment Findings (cont d) Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to have Respondent been satisfied subgroups significantly more likely to have been satisfied (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5) with garbage collection, curbside (ratings recycling, of 4 or 5 out of 5) with water and sewer services included: and organics services and recycling depot included: Those aged 55 and older (77% versus 65% of those aged Those 35 to who were moderately or very likely to recommend Leduc 54 and 60% of those aged 18 to 34); as a place to live (ratings of 7 to 10 out of 10) (73% and 86% versus 53% of those who were unlikely [ratings of 6 or less]); Those who were very likely to recommend Leduc as a place to and live [ratings of 9 to 10 out of 10] (78% versus 66% of those who were moderately likely [ratings of 7 to 8 out of 10] and Those 54% of who indicated that they receive good, very good, or those who were unlikely [ratings of 6 or less]); excellent value for their tax dollars (82% versus 66% of those who feel that they receive fair or poor value). Those who have accessed the City of Leduc website in the past 6 months (75% versus 64% of those who have not); and Those who indicated that they receive good, very good, or Reasons for Dissatisfaction (cont d)* excellent value for their tax dollars (75% versus 55% of those Respondents who were dissatisfied (ratings of 1 or 2 out of 5) with water who feel that they receive fair or poor value). and sewer services (n=8)** stated why they were dissatisfied. Responses included: Reasons for Dissatisfaction (cont d)* Cost of service is too high (n=7); and Respondents who were dissatisfied (ratings of 1 or 2 out Water of 5) is with too hard (n=1). garbage/recycling services (n=53) stated why they *Multiple were dissatisfied. responses Responses included: Dislikes pick-up schedule (36%); Bins are not returned to their proper location (16%); Depot has poor hours of operation (11%); Bins not emptied on time (10%); Cost of service (8%); Do not like organic garbage collection (8%); and Other (less than 5% of responses) (23%). *Multiple responses Females (83% versus 72% of males); 26

27 Selected Sub-Segment Findings (cont d) Selected Sub-Segment Findings (cont d) The respondent subgroup significantly more likely to have been satisfied Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to have been satisfied (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5) with parks and playgrounds included those who indicated that they receive good, very good, (ratings or excellent of 4 or 5 out value of 5) with the Leduc Recreation Centre and other for their tax dollars (87% versus 74% of those who recreational feel that they facilities receive included: fair or poor value). Those who have lived in Leduc between 5 and 14 years (91% versus 84% of those who have lived in Leduc for 15 years or more); Reasons for Dissatisfaction (cont d)* Respondents who were dissatisfied (ratings of 1 or 2 out of 5) Those with who parks were moderately or very likely to recommend Leduc as a place to live [ratings of 7 to 10 out of 10] (88% and 92% and playgrounds (n=10)** stated why they were dissatisfied. Responses included: versus 66% of those who were unlikely [ratings of 6 or less]); and Insufficient maintenance (n=5); Those who indicated that they receive good, very good, or Need more equipment for children with special needs excellent (n=3); and value for their tax dollars (90% versus 78% of those Single mentions (n=4). who feel that they receive fair or poor value). *Multiple responses ** Use caution interpreting results when n<30 Reasons for Dissatisfaction (cont d)* Respondents who were dissatisfied (ratings of 1 or 2 out of 5) with the Leduc Recreation Centre and other recreational facilities (n=10)** stated why they were dissatisfied. Responses included: Costs too much (n=5); Lack of available times/variety (n=2); and Single mentions (n=4). *Multiple responses ** Use caution interpreting results when n<30 27

28 Selected Sub-Segment Findings (cont d) Selected Sub-Segment Findings (cont d) Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to have Respondent been satisfied subgroups significantly more likely to have been satisfied (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5) with sports fields and outdoor (ratings rinks of 4 included: or 5 out of 5) with recreational programs included: Females (81% versus 69% of males); Those aged 18 to 34 (90% versus 75% of those aged 35 to 54 and 76% of those aged 55 and older); and Those with children in their household (81% versus 71% of those without); Those who were moderately or very likely to recommend Leduc as a place to live [ratings of 7 to 10 out of 10] (78% and 82% Those who were moderately or very likely to recommend versus Leduc 51% of those who were unlikely [ratings of 6 or less]). as a place to live [ratings of 7 to 10 out of 10] (72% and 81% versus 55% of those who were unlikely [ratings of 6 or less]); and Reasons for Dissatisfaction (cont d)* Those who indicated that they receive good, very good, or Respondents who were dissatisfied (ratings of 1 or 2 out of 5) with excellent value for their tax dollars (81% versus 57% of those recreational programs (n=7)** stated why they were dissatisfied. who feel that they receive fair or poor value). Responses included: Reasons for Dissatisfaction (cont d)* Lack of programs/facilities/poor distribution across Leduc (n=2); Respondents who were dissatisfied (ratings of 1 or 2 out of 5) with sports fields and outdoor rinks (n=12)** stated why they were and dissatisfied. Responses included: Single mentions (n=5). *Multiple responses Need more outdoor rinks (n=5); ** Use caution interpreting results when n<30 Lack of usage of ponds/lakes (n=2); and Single mentions (n=6). *Multiple responses 28

29 Selected Sub-Segment Findings (cont d) Selected Sub-Segment Findings (cont d) The respondent subgroup significantly more likely to have been Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to have been satisfied satisfied (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5) with multi-way trails included those who were moderately or very likely to recommend (ratings of 4 Leduc or 5 out as a of 5) with arts, culture, and heritage programs place to live [ratings of 7 to 10 out of 10] (90% versus 73% of those included: who were unlikely [ratings of 6 or less]). Reasons for Dissatisfaction (cont d)* Those who have lived in Leduc for less than 5 years (59% versus 40% of those who have lived in Leduc between 5 and 14 years); Respondents who were dissatisfied (ratings of 1 or 2 out of 5) with multiway trails (n=5)** stated why they were dissatisfied. Responses Those included: who were moderately or very likely to recommend Leduc as a place to live [ratings of 7 to 10 out of 10] (42% to 57% Lack of paths in some areas (n=1); versus 22% of those who were unlikely [ratings of 6 or less]); Need more maintenance (n=1); and Too many paths (n=1); Those who indicated that they receive good, very good, or Waste of funds (n=1); excellent value for their tax dollars (50% versus 37% of those Unaware of multi-way trails in the City (n=1); and who feel that they receive fair or poor value). Lack of washrooms on multi-way trails (n=1). Reasons for Dissatisfaction (cont d)* *Multiple responses Respondents who were dissatisfied (ratings of 1 or 2 out of 5) with arts, ** Use caution interpreting results when n<30 culture, and heritage programs (n=16)** stated why they were dissatisfied. Responses included: Lack of arts/culture (n=10); Is a waste of money (n=3); and Single mentions (n=4); *Multiple responses ** Use caution interpreting results when n<30 29

30 Selected Sub-Segment Findings (cont d) Selected Sub-Segment Findings (cont d) Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to Respondent have been satisfied subgroups significantly more likely to have been satisfied (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5) with the public library (ratings included: of 4 or 5 out of 5) with FCSS subsidized counseling included: Females (82% versus 68% of males); Those who have lived in Leduc for 15 years or more (49% versus 34% of those who have lived in Leduc between 5 and 14 years); Those who are not employed full or part-time (81% versus 71% of those who are); Those who rent their home (66% versus 41% of those who own); and Those whose total annual household income is less than $50,000 (87% versus 72% of those whose income is Those between who indicated that they receive good, very good, or $50,000 and less than $150,000, and 72% of those excellent whose value for their tax dollars (47% versus 32% of those income is $150,000 or greater); who feel that they receive fair or poor value). Those who were moderately or very likely to recommend Leduc as a place to live [ratings of 7 to 10 out of 10] (78% and 79% Reasons for Dissatisfaction (cont d)* versus 45% of those who were unlikely [ratings of 6 or less]); and Respondents who were dissatisfied (ratings of 1 or 2 out of 5) with FCSS subsidized counseling (n=16)** stated why they were dissatisfied. Those who indicated that they receive good, very good, or Responses included: excellent value for their tax dollars (78% versus 63% of those who feel that they receive fair or poor value). Lack of counseling services available (n=5); Reasons for Dissatisfaction (cont d)* Lack of quality staff (n=2); and Respondents who were dissatisfied (ratings of 1 or 2 out Single of 5) mentions with the (n=5); public library (n=11)** stated why they were *Multiple dissatisfied. responses Responses included: ** Use caution interpreting results when n<30 Does not use library service (n=4); Spending too much money on the library (n=2); and Single mentions (n=5); *Multiple responses ** Use caution interpreting results when n<30 30

31 Reasons for Dissatisfaction (cont d)* Selected Sub-Segment Findings (cont d) Respondents who were dissatisfied (ratings of 1 or 2 out of 5) with winter road maintenance (n=83) stated why they were dissatisfied. Responses Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to included: have been satisfied (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5) with winter road maintenance included: Residential roads are not done as well as main streets (42%); Those who have lived in Leduc for 15 years or more Snow (63% removal versus takes too long (23%); 52% of those who have lived in Leduc between 5 Lack and of 14 snow years); removal (22%); Those aged 55 and older (66% versus 50% of those Poor aged quality 18 to of snow removal (9%); 34); Snow is pushed elsewhere and not removed (5%); Snow removal done when not needed (3%); Those without children in their household (64% versus 52% of those with children); School zones are not cleared soon enough (3%); Side roads are not cleared at all (2%); and Those with seniors in their household (69% versus 55% of those without); Single mentions (2%). *Multiple responses Those who are not employed full or part-time (66% versus 55% of those who are); Selected Sub-Segment Findings (cont d) Those whose total annual household income is less than $50,000 (72%) or between $50,000 and Respondent less than $150,000 subgroups significantly more likely to have been satisfied (63% versus 47% of those whose income is $150,000 or greater); (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5) with summer road maintenance included: Those who were very likely to recommend Leduc as Those a place who to were very likely to recommend Leduc as a place to live [ratings of 9 to 10 out of 10] (73% versus 35% live of those [ratings who of 9 to 10 out of 10] (76% versus 48% of those who were unlikely [ratings of 6 or less] and 48% of those were who unlikely were [ratings of 6 or less] and 55% of those who were moderately likely [ratings of 7 to 8 out of 10]); and moderately likely [ratings of 7 to 8 out of 10]); and Those who indicated that they receive good, very Those good, who or indicated that they receive good, very good, or excellent value for their tax dollars (64% versus 40% excellent of those value for their tax dollars (67% versus 54% of those who feel that they receive fair or poor value). who feel that they receive fair or poor value). 31

32 Reasons for Dissatisfaction (cont d)* Respondents who were dissatisfied (ratings of Respondents 1 or 2 out who of 5) were with dissatisfied (ratings of 1 or 2 out of 5) with summer road maintenance (n=33) stated why property they were assessment dissatisfied. and taxation (n=64) stated why they were Responses included: dissatisfied. Responses included: Maintenance takes too long (33%); Lack of road maintenance (24%); Poor quality of repairs (23%); Roads a rough (10%); Side roads are not cleared at all (2%); and Single mentions (15%). *Multiple responses Selected Sub-Segment Findings (cont d) Reasons for Dissatisfaction (cont d)* Taxes are too high (57%); Raise taxes too often (28%); Dissatisfied with property assessments/are too high/inaccurate/unfair (11%); Lack of services provided for amount paid (6%); Lack of understanding on how taxes are assessed (3%); and Single mentions (6%). *Multiple responses Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to have been satisfied (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5) with property assessment and taxation included: Those aged 18 to 34 (45%) or 55 and older (41% versus 29% of those aged 35 to 54); Those who were very likely to recommend Leduc as a place to live [ratings of 9 to 10 out of 10] (44% versus 23% of those who were unlikely [ratings of 6 or less] and 31% of those who were moderately likely [ratings of 7 to 8 out of 10]); and Those who indicated that they receive good, very good, or excellent value for their tax dollars (44% versus 15% of those who feel that they receive fair or poor value). 32

33 Selected Sub-Segment Findings (cont d) Respondents who were dissatisfied (ratings of 1 or 2 out of 5) with permit Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to and have inspection been satisfied services for new buildings and improvements (n=44) (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5) with permit and inspection stated services why they for were new dissatisfied. Responses included: buildings and improvements included: Reasons for Dissatisfaction (cont d)* Inspections are not being done properly (43%); Certifications/inspections take too long to get (25%); Those aged 35 to 54 (32% versus 16% of those aged 55 and older); Lack of officers/staff/poor customer service (15%); Building was poorly built (6%); Those with children in their household (29% versus 19% of those without); Poor communication on regulations (5%); Too many rules/too complicated (4%); and Those without seniors in their household (26% versus 15% of Single mentions (11%). those with seniors); *Multiple responses Those who are employed full or part-time (27% versus 16% of those who are not); Selected Sub-Segment Findings (cont d) Those whose total annual household income is less than $50,000 (72%) or between $50,000 and Respondent less than $150,000 subgroups significantly more likely to have been satisfied (63% versus 47% of those whose income is $150,000 or (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5) with community events produced by the City greater); of Leduc included: Those who were moderately or very likely to recommend Leduc as a place to live [ratings of 7 to 10 out of 10] (20% Females and 29% (74% versus 65% of males); versus 6% of those who were unlikely [ratings of 6 or less]); and Those aged 35 to 54 (74% versus 60% of those aged 18 to 34); Those who indicated that they receive good, very good, or excellent value for their tax dollars (25% versus Those 15% of who those were moderately or very likely to recommend Leduc who feel that they receive fair or poor value). as a place to live [ratings of 7 to 10 out of 10] (66% and 78% versus 48% of those who were unlikely [ratings of 6 or less]); and Those who indicated that they receive good, very good, or excellent value for their tax dollars (74% versus 56% of those who feel that they receive fair or poor value). 33