ROTORUA LAKES COUNCIL COMMUNITRAKTM SURVEY MAY 2018 COMMUNITRAK™ SURVEY PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS OF COUNCIL SERVICES AND REPRESENTATION PREPARED AS PART OF THE PUBLIC FEEDBACK PROGRAMME FOR: ROTORUA LAKES COUNCIL MAY 2018 National Research Bureau Ltd PO Box 10118, Mt Eden, Auckland, New Zealand P (09) 6300 655, www.nrb.co.nz CO NT E N TS Page No. A. SITUATION AND OBJECTIVES............................................................................................... 1 B. COMMUNITRAK™ SPECIFICATIONS.................................................................................. 2 C. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................ 6 D. MAIN FINDINGS...................................................................................................................... 18 1. Council Services/Facilities............................................................................................. 19 a. Satisfaction With Council Services/Facilities................................................... 20 i. Footpaths...................................................................................................... 20 ii. Roads In The District.................................................................................. 23 iii. Parking In Rotorua City............................................................................. 26 iv. Control Of Dogs........................................................................................... 29 v. Control Of Noise.......................................................................................... 33 vi. Parks, Reserves And Playgrounds............................................................ 36 vii. Sportsfields................................................................................................... 39 viii. Recycling Waste Materials......................................................................... 42 ix. Art And History Museum.......................................................................... 45 x. Beautification And Landscaping Of The District.................................... 48 xi. Library Service............................................................................................. 51 xii. Event Promotion.......................................................................................... 54 xiii. Rotorua Aquatic Centre.............................................................................. 57 xiv. Promotion Of Rotorua As A Destination To Visit................................... 61 xv. Promotion Of Rotorua As A Destination To Live, Work And Invest... 64 xvi. Public Toilets................................................................................................ 67 xvii. Cycling Facilities In The District............................................................... 70 xviii. Appearance And Cleanliness Of The Rotorua City Centre................... 73 b. Satisfaction With Rubbish Collection - Residents Provided With Service.... 76 i. Rubbish Collection...................................................................................... 76 2. Rates Issues....................................................................................................................... 79 a. Satisfaction With The Way Rates Are Spent On The Services And Facilities Council Provides................................................................................... 80 3. Local Issues....................................................................................................................... 82 a. Council Consultation And Community Involvement..................................... 83 i. Satisfaction With The Opportunities To Be Involved And Participate In The Way Council Makes Decisions.................................. 83 b. Residents' Impressions of Council Decisions/Actions.................................... 85 c. Satisfaction With Quality Of Information......................................................... 87 E. APPENDIX................................................................................................................................. 89 NB: Please note the following explanations for this report: Figures that are comparably lower than percentages for other respondent types. Figures that are comparably higher than percentages for other respondent types. Arrows, whenever shown, depict a directional trend. Please note that unusual or one-off occurrences, such as climatic events, can affect ratings. In general, where bases are small (<30), no comparisons have been made. For small bases, the estimates of results are not statistically reliable due to the high margins of error. Icons used in this report made by Freepik from www.flaticon.com 1 A.  SITUATION AND OBJECTIVES Council engages a variety of approaches, to seek public opinion and to communicate programmes and decisions to the people resident in its area. One of these approaches was to commission the National Research Bureau's Communitrak™ survey undertaken from 1992 - 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and again in 2018. In 2018, Communitrak™ sought to obtain the views of Rotorua District residents on the specific issues of ... • how satisfied residents are with the way Council involves the public in the decisions it makes, • residents' impressions of Council decisions and actions, • satisfaction with the quality of information. * * * * * 2 B.  COMMUNITRAK™ SPECIFICATIONS Sample Size This Communitrak™ survey was conducted by telephone with 401 residents of the Rotorua District. The survey is framed on the basis of the four Areas below to ensure a relatively proportional spread of residents across these four broad Areas which comprise the District. Sampling and analysis was based on four Areas and the interviews spread as follows: North 103 South 99 East 99 West 100 Total = 401 Interview Type All interviewing was conducted by telephone, with calls being made between 4.30pm and 8.30pm on weekdays and 9.30am and 8.30pm weekends. Sample Selection The relevant white pages of the telephone directory were used as the sample source, with every xth number being selected; that is, each residential (non-business) number selected was chosen in a systematic, randomised way (in other words, at a regular interval), in order to spread the numbers chosen in an even way across all relevant phone book pages. Quota sampling was used to ensure an even balance of male and female respondents, with the sample also stratified according to Area. Sample sizes for each Area were predetermined to ensure a sufficient number of respondents within each Area, so that analysis could be conducted on a Area-by-Area basis. A door-to-door sample of 40 residents spread across the District was conducted this year. This was targeted at those aged 18 to 44 as this group, in particular, is increasingly difficult to conduct by phone. A target of interviewing approximately 120 residents, aged 18 to 44 years, was also set. Households were screened to ensure they fell within the Rotorua Lakes Council's geographical boundaries. 3 Respondent Selection Respondent selection within the household was also randomised, with the eligible person being the man or woman, normally resident, aged 18 years or over, who had the last birthday. Call Backs Three call backs, ie, four calls in all, were made to a residence before the number was replaced in the sample. Call backs were made on a different day or, in the case of a weekend, during a different time period, ie, at least four hours later. Sample Weighting Weightings are applied to the sample data, to reflect the actual gender, age group and ethnic group proportions in the area as determined by Statistics New Zealand's 2013 Census data. The result is that the total figures represent the adult population's viewpoint as a whole across the entire Rotorua District. Bases for subsamples are shown in the Appendix. Where we specify a "base" we are referring to the actual number of respondents. Survey Dates All interviews were conducted between Friday 18th May and Sunday 27th May 2018. Comparison Data Communitrak™ offers to Councils the opportunity to compare their performance with those of Local Authorities across all New Zealand as a whole and with similarly constituted Local Authorities. The Communitrak service includes ... • comparisons with a national sample of 1,000 interviews conducted in July 2016, • comparisons with provincial, urban and rural norms, • comparisons with previous readings of your own District's views (in this case the Rotorua District 2001-2009, 2011-2017 Communitrak™). The 2010 results relate to a survey conducted by another research company. The survey methodology for the comparison data is similar in every respect to that used for your Council's Communitrak™ reading. Where comment has been made regarding respondents more or less likely to represent a particular opinion or response, the comparison has been made between respondents in each socio-economic group, and not between each socio-economic group and the total. Weightings have been applied to this comparison data to reflect the actual adult population in Local Authorities as determined by Statistics NZ 2013 Census data. 4 Comparisons With National Communitrak™ Results Where survey results have been compared with Peer Group and/or National Average results from the July 2016 National Communitrak™ Survey, NRB has used the following for comparative purposes, for a sample of 400 residents: above/below slightly above/below on par with similar to ±7% or more ±5% to 6% ±3% to 4% ±1% to 2% Margin Of Error The survey is a quota sample, designed to cover the important variables within the population. Therefore, we are making the assumption that it is appropriate to use the error estimates that would apply to a simple random sample of the population. The following margins of error are based on a simple random sample. The maximum likely error limits occur when a reported percentage is 50%, but more often than not the reported percentage is different, and margins of error for other reported percentages are shown below. The margin of error approaches 0% as a reported percentage approaches either 100% or 0%. Margins of error rounded to the nearest whole percentage, at the 95 percent level of confidence, for different sample sizes and reported percentages are: Sample Size 500 400 300 200 50% ±4% ±5% ±6% ±7% Reported Percentage 60% or 40% 70% or 30% 80% or 20% ±4% ±4% ±4% ±5% ±5% ±4% ±6% ±5% ±5% ±7% ±6% ±6% 90% or 10% ±3% ±3% ±3% ±4% The margin of error figures above refer to the accuracy of a result in a survey, given a 95 percent level of confidence. A 95 percent level of confidence implies that if 100 samples were taken, we would expect the margin of error to contain the true value in all but five samples. At the 95 percent level of confidence, the margin of error for a sample of 400 respondents, at a reported percentage of 50%, is plus or minus 5%. Response Rate The response rate for the 2018 Rotorua Lakes Council was 61%, which is much higher than seen typically in web or mail-out surveys (often in the 5%-30% range). With a decreasing response rate there is an increasing likelihood that the sample is less and less representative of the District. 5 Significant Difference This is a test to determine if the difference in a result between two separate surveys is significant. Significant differences rounded to the nearest whole percentage, at the 95 percent level of confidence, for different sample sizes and midpoints are: Sample Size 500 400 300 200 50% 6% 7% 8% 10% 60% or 40% 6% 7% 8% 10% Midpoint 70% or 30% 80% or 20% 6% 5% 6% 6% 7% 6% 9% 8% 90% or 10% 4% 4% 5% 6% The figures above refer to the difference between two results that is required, in order to say that the difference is significant, given a 95 percent level of confidence. Thus the significant difference, for the same question, between two separate surveys of 400 respondents is 7%, given a 95 percent level of confidence, where the midpoint of the two results is 50%. Please note that while the Communitrak™ survey report is, of course, available to residents, the Mayor and Councillors, and Council staff, it is not available to research or other companies to use or leverage in any way for commercial purposes. * * * * * 6 C.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report summarises the opinions and attitudes of Rotorua Lakes Council residents and ratepayers to the services and facilities provided for them by their Council and their elected representatives. The Rotorua Lakes Council commissioned Communitrak™ as a means of measuring their effectiveness in representing the wishes and viewpoints of their residents. Understanding residents' and ratepayers' opinions and needs will allow Council to be more responsive towards its citizens. 7 Snapshot 93% of residents are satisfied with the appearance and cleanliness of Rotorua City Centre. While 33% are not very satisfied with roads in the District. 63% of residents are satisfied with how rates are spent on services and facilities provided by Council. And 55% strongly approve/approve of decisions and/or actions of Council in last 12 months. 8 Council Services/Facilities Summary Table: Satisfaction With Services/Facilities Rotorua 2018 Very/Fairly satisfied % Rotorua 2017 Not very satisfied % Very/Fairly satisfied % Not very satisfied % Appearance and cleanliness of Rotorua City Centre 93 = 7 = 93 6 Beautification and landscaping 87 = 11 = 91 9 Promotion of Rotorua as a destination to visit 85 ↓ 7 = 92 4 Noise control 84 = 7 = 81 7 Parks, reserves and playgrounds 84 = 11 = 86 9 Dog control 77 = 16 = 73 20 Sportsfields 76 = 11 = 79 8 Recycling waste materials 76 = 20 = 79 19 Footpaths 74 = 22 = 78 19 Cycling facilities 70 = 21 = 72 17 Roads in the District 67 ↑ 33 ↓ 61 40 Library service 65 ↓ 11 ↑ 71 6 Event promotion 65 ↓ 24 ↑ 84 10 Parking in Rotorua City 64 ↓ 34 ↑ 74 24 Promotion of Rotorua as a destination to live, work and invest 62 ↓ 19 ↑ 70 11 Rotorua Aquatic Centre 51 ↓ 28 ↑ 64 14 Public toilets 46 = 37 = 46 35 Art and History Museum* 28 ↓ 47 ↑ 59 14 Key: ↑ above/slightly above 2017 reading ↓ below/slightly below 2017 reading = similar/on par NB: Where figures do not add to 100%, the balance is a "don't know" response * on 16 November 2016, after the Kaikoura earthquake, the Museum was closed as a precautionary measure 9 Percent Saying They Are Not Very Satisfied With ... Overall , #! +&!# +* )"!% !% &+&), !+/ & * !% + !*+)! + &+&), (, +! %+) - %+ ')&$&+!&% &&+' + * / #!% !#!+! * !% + !*+)! + / #!% . *+ $ + )! #* )&$&+!&% & &+&), * *+!% +!&% +& #!- .&)" !%- *+ Mean (average) 19% & &%+)&# ,+!0 +!&% # % * '!% & + !*+)! + )"* ) * )- * '# / )&,% * '&)+*0 # * ! ) )/ * )-! &!* &%+)&# '' ) % # %#!% ** & &+&), !+/ %+) )&$&+!&% & &+&), * *+!% +!&% +& -!*!+ 10 Percent Very Satisfied - Comparison 2018 % 2017 % Peer Group % National Average % Appearance and cleanliness of the Rotorua City Centre 59 51 **34 **36 Beautification and landscaping of the District 57 64 50 38 Promotion of Rotorua as a destination to visit 47 57 Control of noise 47 36 34 36 Cycling facilities in the District 46 50 NA NA Parks, reserves and playgrounds 43 53 *63 *58 Recycling waste materials 40 47 61 53 Sportsfields 40 46 Library service 38 51 69 69 Event promotion 32 44 NA NA Control of dogs 32 30 28 32 Rotorua Aquatic Centre 24 31 Footpaths 22 24 20 23 Parking in Rotorua City 19 24 31 19 Roads in the District 19 13 • Promotion of Rotorua as a destination to live, work and invest 17 27 ††† 9 10 Public toilets 40 •• †† † 59 43 20 9 32 28 •• †† † 56 38 21 • ††† 7 26 * figures are based on average ratings for parks and reserves and sportsfields and playgrounds ** figures are based on ratings for litter control in general † figures are based on ratings for public swimming pools †† figures are based on ratings for sportsfields and playgrounds ††† figures are based on ratings for job promotion • figures are based on ratings for roads, excluding State Highways •• figures are based on ratings for tourism promotion NA: not asked/no comparative figures available 11 Percent Saying They Are Very Satisfied With ... Overall (( * & $ &$"& ++ ' ','*- ",0 &,* -,"1 ,"'& $ & + ("& ' ,! "+,*" , *'%',"'& ' ','*- + +,"& ,"'& ,' ."+", '"+ '&,*'$ 0 $"& "$"," + "& ,! "+,*" , *#+ * + *. + ($ 0 *'-& + 0 $"& / +, % , *" $+ ('*,+1 $ + " * *0 + *." Mean (average) 35% ' '&,*'$ . &, (*'%',"'& ','*- )- ," &,* '',( ,!+ *#"& "& ','*- ",0 ' + "& ,! "+,*" , *'%',"'& ' ','*- + +,"& ,"'& ,' $". /'*# "&. +, - $" ,'"$ ,+ 12 In terms of those not very satisfied, Rotorua performs below/slightly below the Peer Group and/or National Averages for ... Rotorua Peer National 2018 Group Average % % % • parking in Rotorua City 34 31 • promotion of Rotorua as a destination to live, work and invest 19 • control of dogs 16 23 19 • appearance and cleanliness of Rotorua City Centre 7 *18 *16 • promotion of Rotorua as a destination to visit 7 † 26 ◊ 14 42 24 ◊ 16 † However, Rotorua is above/slightly above the Peer Group and/or National Averages for ... • public toilets 37 19 • roads in the District 33 • Rotorua Aquatic Centre 28 **9 **8 • recycling waste materials 20 • sportsfields 11 •• • parks, reserves and playgrounds 11 • • library service 11 31 †† 13 17 25 †† 14 6 •• 4 • 1 5 5 3 For the following services/facilities, Rotorua performs on par with/similar to the Peer Group and National Averages ... • footpaths 22 25 23 • beautification and landscaping 11 12 15 7 5 10 • control of noise * figures based on ratings for litter control in general ** figures based on ratings for public swimming pools † figures based on ratings for tourism promotion †† figures based on ratings for roads, excluding State Highways ◊ figures based on ratings for job promotion • figures based on average ratings for parks and reserves and sportsfields and playgrounds •• figures based on ratings for sportsfields and playgrounds As Art and History Museum is closed no comparisons have been made. 13 Satisfaction With Council Services - Residents Provided With Service Only Rubbish collection Base 2018 360 93 2017† † Very/Fairly satisfied % 365 94 Not very satisfied % Don't know % 6 1 7 - does not add to 100% due to rounding The percent not very satisfied is below the Peer Group Average and similar to the National Average. 14 Frequency Of Household Use - Council Services And Facilities Usage In Last Year Three times or more % Once or twice % Not at all % Recycling services 82 7 11 Parks, reserves or playgrounds 68 16 16 An event venue 49 31 20 Public toilets 44 25 31 Sportsfields 48 12 40 Rotorua Aquatic Centre 41 16 43 District Library 41 15 44 Cycling facilities 36 6 58 Contacted Council about dogs 5 14 81 Art and History Museum* 3 8 89 Contacted Council about noise 2 8 90 * on 16 November 2016, after the Kaikoura earthquake, the Museum was closed as a precautionary measure. The facility is still providing a range of services 'beyond the walls', including education programmes, events and free guided tours. Recycling services, 89%, parks, reserves or playgrounds, 84% and, an event venue, 80% and, ... are the facilities or services surveyed which have been most frequently used by residents in the last year. 15 Rates 84% of residents identify themselves, or members of their household, as ratepayers (90% in 2017). Satisfaction With How Rates Are Spent On The Services And Facilities Provided By The Council The main reasons* given by those who are not very satisfied are ... • overspending/wasting money/debt/spending priorities, 10% of all residents, • high rates/increases/too high for services received/not value for money/unfair, 7%, • more spending on infrastructure/specified services/facilities needing attention, 7%, • roading/footpath/traffic issues needing attention, 6%. * multiple responses allowed 16 Local Issues Council Consultation And Community Involvement How Satisfied Are Residents With The Opportunities To Be Involved And Participate In The Way Council Makes Decisions? (Does not add to 100% due to rounding) Council Decisions/Actions In Last 12 Months Residents' impressions of decisions and/or actions of Council in last 12 months ... (Does not add to 100% due to rounding) 17 Satisfaction With Quality Of Council's Information * * * * * 18 D.  MAIN FINDINGS Throughout this Communitrak™ report, comparisons are made with the National Average of Local Authorities and with a Peer Group of similar Local Authorities. For Rotorua Lakes Council, this Peer Group of similar Local Authorities are those comprising a provincial city or town(s), together with a rural component. NRB has defined the Provincial Peer Group as those Territorial Authorities where from 66% to 91% of dwellings are in urban meshblocks, as classified by Statistics New Zealand’s 2013 Census data. In this group are ... Ashburton District Council Queenstown Lakes District Council Gore District Council Taupo District Council Gisborne District Council Grey District Council Hastings District Council Horowhenua District Council Marlborough District Council Masterton District Council New Plymouth District Council South Waikato District Council Thames Coromandel District Council Timaru District Council Waipa District Council Whakatāne District Council Whangarei District Council gent, 1. COUNCIL 19 20 a. Satisfaction With Council Services/Facilities Residents were read out a number of Council functions and asked whether they are very satisfied, fairly satisfied or not very satisfied with the provision of that service/facility. i. Footpaths Overall In 2018, 74% of residents are satisfied with footpaths, while 22% are not very satisfied (19% in 2017). The percent not very satisfied is on par with the Peer Group Average and similar to the National Average. Residents with an annual household income of less than $45,000 are more likely to be not very satisfied with footpaths, than other income groups. The main reasons* given for not being very satisfied with footpaths are ... • no footpaths/not enough footpaths/one side only/partial, mentioned by 8% of all residents, • uneven/bumpy/broken/rough/cracked surfaces/potholes, 8%, • lack of maintenance/need upgrading/poor condition, 5%, • difficult for elderly/disabled/poor access, 3%. * multiple responses allowed 21 Satisfaction With Footpaths Very Fairly Very/Fairly satisfied satisfied satisfied % % % Not very Don’t satisfied know % % Overall 52 74 22 4 Total District 2018 22 2017 24 54 78 19 3 2016 20 59 79 16 5 2015 24 58 82 15 3 2014 28 56 84 13 3 2013 26 58 84 13 3 2012 27 56 83 15 2 2011 22 60 82 14 4 2010* 17 70 87 11 2 2009 21 60 81 17 2 2008 23 52 75 21 4 2007 24 57 81 15 4 2006 23 58 81 15 4 2005 24 57 81 16 3 2004 26 56 82 16 2 2003 33 48 81 16 3 2002 29 54 83 15 2 2001 33 46 79 18 3 2000 37 49 86 12 2 20 47 67 25 8 National Average 23 49 72 23 5 Comparison Peer Group (Provincial) Household Income Less than $45,000 pa 22 43 65 33 2 $45,000-$75,000 pa 18 59 77 20 3 More than $75,000 pa† % read across * 2010 survey not conducted by NRB † does not add to 100% due to rounding 23 55 78 17 4 22 Footpaths * 2010 survey not conducted by NRB Recommended Satisfaction Measures For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 74% 23 ii. Roads In The District Overall 67% of residents are satisfied with roads in the District (61% in 2017), while 33% are not very satisfied (40% in 2017). The percent not very satisfied is similar to the Peer Group Average and above the National Average. Residents aged 45 to 64 years are more likely to be not very satisfied with roads, than other age groups. The main reasons* for being not very satisfied with roads in the District are ... • • • • potholes/uneven/rough/bumpy surfaces, mentioned by 12% of all residents, traffic issues/congestion/speed of traffic, 11%, poor condition/lack of maintenance/need upgrading/slow to maintain, 9%, poor quality of work/materials used/patching, 6%. * multiple responses allowed 24 Satisfaction With Roads In The District Very Fairly Very/Fairly satisfied satisfied satisfied % % % Not very Don’t satisfied know % % Overall Total District 2018† 19 48 67 33 1 2017† 13 48 61 2016 20 61 81 18 1 2015 28 59 87 2014 26 58 84 15 1 2013 19 61 80 20 - 2012 24 57 81 19 - 2011 23 60 83 17 - 2010*† 12 66 78 21 - 2009 20 62 82 17 1 2008 22 58 80 19 1 2007 26 58 84 15 1 2006 23 55 78 22 - 2005 25 54 79 21 - 2004 21 63 84 16 - 2003 29 56 85 14 1 2002 28 54 82 17 1 2001 25 47 72 28 - 2000 31 49 80 20 - 20 49 69 31 - National Average 21 54 75 25 - 40 13 - Comparison** Peer Group (Provincial) Age 18-44 years 22 48 70 29 1 45-64 years 13 47 60 65+ years 20 50 70 29 1 40 % read across * 2010 survey not conducted by NRB ** Peer Group and National Average ratings refers to roads, excluding State Highways † does not add to 100% due to rounding - 25 Roads In The District * 2010 survey not conducted by NRB Recommended Satisfaction Measures For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 67% 26 iii. Parking In Rotorua City Overall 64% of residents are satisfied with parking in Rotorua City (74% in 2017), while 34% are not very satisfied (24% in 2017). The percent not very satisfied is on par with the Peer Group Average and below National Average readings for parking in Central Business District. There are no notable differences between socio-economic groups, in terms of those residents not very satisfied with parking in Rotorua City. However, it appears that the following residents are slightly more likely to feel this way ... • NZ Māori residents, • residents with an annual household income of $45,000 to $75,000. The main reasons* for being not very satisfied with parking in Rotorua City are ... • not enough parking, mentioned by 11% of all residents, • cost of parking/metered parking/need more free parking, 10%, • parking removed/cycleway issues, 9%. * multiple responses allowed NB: no other reasons is mentioned by more than 3% of all residents 27 Satisfaction With Parking In Rotorua City Very Fairly Very/Fairly satisfied satisfied satisfied % % % Not very Don’t satisfied know % % Overall 19 2017 24 50 74 24 2 2016 22 49 71 27 1 2015 36 49 85 14 1 2014 46 37 83 15 2 2013† 19 49 68 31 2 2012 19 51 70 29 1 2011 11 54 65 32 3 2010* 14 56 70 28 2 2009 15 52 67 31 2 2008 14 49 63 34 3 2007 19 47 66 32 2 2006 13 47 60 39 1 2005 11 42 53 46 1 2004 9 39 48 51 1 2003 17 35 52 47 1 2002 12 36 48 49 3 2001 13 38 51 48 1 2000 16 36 52 46 2 31 37 68 31 1 National Average 19 35 54 42 4 17 49 66 32 2 † 45 64 34 2 Total District 2018 Comparison Peer Group (Provincial) Ethnicity NZ European NZ Māori† 12 43 55 41 3 Household Income Less than $45,000 pa 16 46 62 34 4 $45,000-$75,000 pa 21 36 57 More than $75,000 pa† % read across * 2010 survey not conducted by NRB † does not add to 100% due to rounding 22 48 43 - 70 29 1 28 Parking In Rotorua City * 2010 survey not conducted by NRB Recommended Satisfaction Measures For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 64% 29 iv. Control Of Dogs Overall Contacted Council About Dogs Base = 74 Dog Owners Base = 145 30 77% of residents are satisfied with dog control (73% in 2017), including 32% who are very satisfied, while 16% are not very satisfied and 7% are unable to comment. The percent not very satisfied is below the Peer Group Average and on par with the National Average and the 2017 reading. 19% of Rotorua households have contacted Council about dogs in the last 12 months (23% in 2017), while 40% of residents are dog owners. 78% of dog owners are satisfied, while 65% of residents whose household has contacted Council about dogs feel this way. Residents with an annual household income of more than $75,000 are less likely to be not very satisfied with dog control, than other income groups. The main reasons* given for being not very satisfied with dog control are ... • too many roaming/uncontrolled dogs, mentioned by 11% of all residents, • danger to people and other animals, 5%, • poor service/rangers could do a better job, 3%. * multiple responses allowed 31 Satisfaction With Control Of Dogs Very Fairly Very/Fairly satisfied satisfied satisfied % % % Not very Don’t satisfied know % % Overall 32 2017† 30 43 73 20 8 2016 24 47 71 2015 31 44 75 17 8 2014 29 40 69 23 8 2013 33 39 72 22 6 2012 28 49 77 19 4 2011† 26 49 75 19 5 2010*† 17 60 77 18 6 2009 23 50 73 22 5 2008 28 49 77 17 6 2007 25 44 69 27 4 2006 25 45 70 26 4 2005 28 47 75 21 4 2004 25 44 69 25 6 2003 27 46 73 23 4 2002 29 43 72 23 5 2001 34 38 72 25 3 2000 35 39 74 20 6 Contacted Council about dogs 21 44 65 33 2 Dog Owners 35 43 78 15 7 45 77 16 7 Total District 2018 18 11 Comparison Peer Group (Provincial)† 28 42 70 23 6 National Average 32 41 73 19 8 Household Income Less than $45,000 pa 37 37 74 22 4 $45,000-$75,000 pa 23 49 72 21 7 More than $75,000 pa† % read across * 2010 survey not conducted by NRB † does not add to 100% due to rounding 33 48 81 10 8 32 Control Of Dogs * 2010 survey not conducted by NRB Recommended Satisfaction Measures For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 77% Contacted Council = 65% Dog Owners = 78% 33 v. Control Of Noise Overall Contacted Council About Noise Base = 40 84% of residents overall are satisfied with noise control (81% in 2017), including 47% who are very satisfied (36% in 2017). 7% are not very satisfied and 9% are unable to comment. The percent not very satisfied is similar to the Peer Group Average and the 2017 reading and on par with the National Average. 10% of households have contacted Council about noise control in the last 12 months. Of these, 72% are satisfied and 27% are not very satisfied. For a base of 34, the margin of error is ±15.5%. There are no notable differences between socio-economic groups, in terms of those residents not very satisfied with noise control. The main reasons* for being not very satisfied with noise control are ... • noisy neighbours/loud parties/music/noisy cars, mentioned by 5% of all residents, • lack of action/slow response, 3%. * multiple responses allowed NB: no other reason is mentioned by more than 1% of all residents 34 Satisfaction With Noise Control Very Fairly Very/Fairly satisfied satisfied satisfied % % % Not very Don’t satisfied know % % Overall 84 7 9 36 45 81 7 11 2016 26 42 68 13 19 2015 37 39 76 6 18 2014 37 38 75 4 21 2013 40 41 81 4 15 2012 37 46 83 5 12 2011 29 49 78 7 15 2010*† 22 62 84 5 10 2009 28 54 82 7 11 2008 33 49 82 8 10 2007 32 48 80 8 12 2006 30 53 83 8 9 2005 32 54 86 6 8 2004 31 49 80 8 12 2003 33 47 80 7 13 2002 38 39 77 9 14 2001 34 39 73 9 18 2000 39 37 76 7 17 36 36 72 27 1 34 43 77 5 18 79 10 12 Total District 2018 47 2017† Contacted Council About Noise 37 Comparison Peer Group (Provincial) National Average† 36 43 % read across * 2010 survey not conducted by NRB † does not add to 100% due to rounding 35 Noise Control * 2010 survey not conducted by NRB Recommended Satisfaction Measures For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 84% Contacted Council = 72% 36 vi. Parks, Reserves And Playgrounds Overall Users/Visitors Base = 319 84% of all residents are satisfied with parks, reserves and playgrounds, with 43% being very satisfied (53% in 2017). 11% of residents are not very satisfied with these facilities. The percent not very satisfied is above the Peer Group Average†, slightly above the National Average† and similar to the 2017 reading. 84% of households say they have used or visited parks, reserves or playgrounds in the last 12 months, with 86% of these residents being satisfied. There are no notable differences between socio-economic groups in terms of those residents not very satisfied with parks, reserves and playgrounds. The main reasons* given by residents for being not very satisfied with the District's parks, reserves and playgrounds are ... • poor/need upgrading/better facilities, mentioned by 4% of all residents, • not well maintained, 3%. * multiple responses allowed Peer Group and National Average ratings are an average, as parks and reserves and sportsfields and playgrounds were asked separately in the 2016 National Communitrak™ survey † 37 Satisfaction With Parks, Reserves And Playgrounds Very Fairly Very/Fairly satisfied satisfied satisfied % % % Not very Don’t satisfied know % % Overall* 43 2017 53 33 86 9 5 2016 55 34 89 9 2 2015 59 30 89 8 3 2014 60 28 88 8 4 2013 56 36 92 5 3 2012 56 37 93 5 2 2011 53 36 89 8 3 2010**† 45 47 92 6 3 2009 57 35 92 5 3 2008 56 35 91 7 2 2007 56 33 89 8 3 2006 56 36 92 5 3 2005 59 32 91 6 3 2004 48 43 91 6 3 2003 58 33 91 6 3 2002 57 28 85 9 6 2001 61 28 89 9 2 2000 62 27 89 8 3 44 42 86 11 2 63 28 91 4 5 National Average 58 33 91 5 4 Users/Visitors† 41 84 11 5 Total District 2018 Comparison†† Peer Group (Provincial) % read across * Readings prior to 2007 refer to parks, reserves, sportsfields and playgrounds. In 2007, satisfaction with sportsfields was asked separately (see pages 39 - 41). ** 2010 survey not conducted by NRB † does not add to 100% due to rounding †† Peer Group and National Average ratings are an average, as parks and reserves, and sportsfields and playgrounds were asked separately in the 2016 National CommunitrakTM survey. 38 Parks, Reserves And Playgrounds * Readings prior to 2007 refer to parks, reserves, sportsfields and playgrounds. In 2007, satisfaction with sportsfields was asked separately. ** 2010 survey not conducted by NRB Recommended Satisfaction Measures For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 84% Users/Visitors = 86% 39 vii. Sportsfields Overall Users/Visitors Base = 215 76% of Rotorua District residents are satisfied with sportsfields (79% in 2017), including 40% who are very satisfied (46% in 2017). 11% are not very satisfied (8% in 2017) and 14% are unable to comment. The percent not very satisfied is slightly above the Peer Group and National Averages for sportsfields and playgrounds. 60% of households say they have used or visited a sportsfield in the last 12 months. Of these, 80% are satisfied and 17% not very satisfied. Residents with an annual household income of $45,000 to $75,000 are more likely to be not very satisfied with sportsfields, than other income groups. The main reasons* for being not very satisfied with the District's sportsfields are ... • sportsfields and facilities need improving/unkempt, mentioned by 7% of all residents, • improve parking/roading/access, 2%. * multiple responses allowed 40 Satisfaction With Sportsfields Very Fairly Very/Fairly satisfied satisfied satisfied % % % Not very Don’t satisfied know % % Overall* Total District 2018† 40 36 76 11 14 2017† 46 33 79 8 14 2016 41 41 82 5 13 2015 49 36 85 4 11 2014 50 32 82 5 13 2013 52 36 88 3 9 2012 47 39 86 4 10 2011 41 41 82 4 14 2010** 35 49 84 4 12 2009 46 37 83 4 13 2008 47 39 86 5 9 2007 47 37 84 4 12 44 36 80 17 4 Peer Group (Provincial)† 59 28 87 6 8 National Average 56 32 88 5 7 Users/Visitors† Comparison†† Household Income† Less than $45,000 pa 38 35 73 8 20 $45,000-$75,000 pa 34 32 66 20 15 More than $75,000 pa 42 38 80 9 10 % read across * prior to 2007, not asked separately ** 2010 survey not conducted by NRB † does not add to 100% due to rounding †† Peer Group and National Average ratings refer to sportsfields and playgrounds 41 Sportsfields ** 2010 survey not conducted by NRB Recommended Satisfaction Measures For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 76% Users/Visitors = 80% 42 viii. Recycling Waste Materials Overall Users Base = 353 76% of residents are satisfied with the District's recycling of waste materials (79% in 2017), including 40% who are very satisfied (47% in 2017). 20% are not very satisfied and 4% are unable to comment. The percent not very satisfied is above the Peer Group Average, slightly above the National Average, but similar to the 2017 reading. 89% of households have used the Council's recycling services in the last year (92% in 2017). Of these, 80% are satisfied and 18% not very satisfied. Residents more likely to be not very satisfied with recycling waste materials are ... • longer term residents, those residing in the District more than 10 years, • ratepayers. The main reasons* for being not very satisfied with the District's recycling of waste materials are ... • • • • • • no longer recycle plastics/plastic bags, mentioned by 6% of all residents, need provision for more recycling/large items/green waste, 4%, non-existent recycling service/none here, 3%, don't like the changes/new system/can't recycle as much, 3%, hassle to drive to town to recycle centres, 3%, needs improving/could do more, 3%. * multiple responses allowed 43 Satisfaction With Recycling Waste Materials Very Fairly Very/Fairly satisfied satisfied satisfied % % % Not very Don’t satisfied know % % Overall* 36 76 20 4 Total District 2018 40 2017 47 32 79 19 2 2016 37 32 69 26 5 2015 44 29 73 20 7 2014 44 25 69 24 7 2013 42 26 68 29 3 2012 46 27 73 23 4 2011 31 29 60 33 7 2010** 23 39 62 34 4 2009 29 28 57 41 2 2008 27 23 50 46 4 2007 30 27 57 37 6 2006 28 29 57 2005 30 30 60 31 9 2004 24 31 55 34 11 2003 31 30 61 28 11 2002 43 25 68 21 11 2001 30 29 59 27 14 Users 43 37 33 10 80 18 2 Comparison 61 21 82 13 5 National Average 53 28 81 14 5 Peer Group (Provincial) Length of Residence† Lived there 10 years or less 53 34 87 10 2 Lived there more than 10 years 37 37 74 23 4 Ratepayer? Ratepayer 38 36 74 22 4 Non-ratepayer 85 11 4 % read across * not asked in 2000 ** 2010 survey not conducted by NRB † does not add to 100% due to rounding 48 37 44 Recycling Waste Materials ** 2010 survey not conducted by NRB Recommended Satisfaction Measures For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 76% Users = 80% 45 ix. Art And History Museum Overall Users/Visitors Base = 41 28% of residents overall are satisfied with the Art and History Museum**, with 47% being very satisfied. 25% are unable to comment. As the museum is closed no comparison has been made with the Peer Group and National Averages. 11% of households say they have used or visited the Art and History Museum in the last 12 months. 49% of users/visitors are satisfied, while 39% are not very satisfied. Residents more likely to be not very satisfied are ... • women, • residents with an annual household income of $45,000 or more. The main reasons* are not very satisfied with the Art and History Museum are ... • museum closure/earthquake risk/costing money, mentioned by 42% of all residents, • lack of information/when it is going to re-open, 5%. * multiple responses allowed NB: no other reason mentioned by more than 2% of all residents ** on 16 November 2016, after the Kaikoura earthquake, the Museum was closed as a precautionary measure 46 Satisfaction With Art And History Museum Very Fairly Very/Fairly satisfied satisfied satisfied % % % Not very Don’t satisfied know % % Overall 28 47 25 33 26 59 14 27 2016 58 24 82 1 17 2015 55 25 80 2 18 2014† 58 22 80 1 18 2013 61 21 82 2 16 2012 66 18 84 1 15 2011 51 25 76 1 23 2010* 48 32 80 1 19 2009 56 24 80 2 18 2008 57 22 79 2 19 2007 56 23 79 1 20 2006 57 25 82 2 16 2005 53 25 78 1 21 2004 49 22 71 2 27 2003 52 23 75 1 24 2002 56 21 75 2 21 2001 57 18 75 5 20 2000 43 25 78 4 28 23 26 49 39 12 Male 10 22 32 41 27 Female 10 15 25 53 22 Total District 2018 10 2017** Users/Visitors 18 Gender Household Income Less than $45,000 pa 14 20 34 37 29 $45,000-$75,000 pa 10 19 29 50 21 More than $75,000 pa 8 18 26 49 25 % read across * 2010 survey not conducted by NRB ** on 16 November 2016, after the Kaikoura earthquake, the Museum was closed as a precautionary measure † does not add to 100% due to rounding 47 Art And History Museum * 2010 survey not conducted by NRB ** on 16 November 2016, after the Kaikoura earthquake, the Museum was closed as a precautionary measure Recommended Satisfaction Measures For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 28% Users/Visitors = 49% 48 x. Beautification And Landscaping Of The District Overall 87% of Rotorua District residents are satisfied with the beautification and landscaping of the District (91% in 2017), including 57% who are very satisfied (64% in 2017). The percent not very satisfied, 11%, is similar to the Peer Group Average and the 2017 reading, and on par with the National Average. There are no notable differences between socio-economic groups in terms of those residents not very satisfied with beautification and landscaping. The main reasons* for being not very satisfied with the District's beautification and landscaping are ... • could be better/not attractive/more to be done, mentioned by 4% of all residents, • too much money being spent/should be spent elsewhere, 2%, • more maintenance/cleaning needed, 2%. * multiple responses allowed 49 Satisfaction With Beautification And Landscaping Of The District Very Fairly Very/Fairly satisfied satisfied satisfied % % % Overall 87 11 2 Total District 2018 57 2016 62 30 92 2014 69 26 95 68 29 97 61 35 96 66 27 93 68 29 97 69 26 95 76 20 96 2017† 2015 2013 2012 2011 2010* 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 30 Not very Don’t satisfied know % % 64 27 National Average % read across * 2010 survey not conducted by NRB † does not add to 100% due to rounding 9 1 7 1 72 26 98 75 21 96 71 24 95 64 32 96 71 23 94 67 25 92 75 21 96 73 19 92 76 18 94 50 86 12 2 Comparison Peer Group (Provincial) 91 38 36 44 2 - 4 - 4 1 2 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 5 2 3 3 3 - 7 1 3 2 3 1 3 1 6 2 5 1 82 15 3 50 Beautification And Landscaping Of The District * 2010 survey not conducted by NRB Recommended Satisfaction Measures For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 87% 51 xi. Library Service Overall Users Base = 215 Overall, 65% of residents are satisfied with the library service (71% in 2017), with 38% being very satisfied (51% in 2017), while 24% are unable to comment. The percent not very satisfied (11%) is above the Peer Group and National Averages and 5% above the 2017 reading. 56% of households have used a District Library in the last 12 months (63% in 2017) and, of these, 83% are satisfied, with 13% not very satisfied. There are no notable differences between socio-economic groups, in terms of those residents not very satisfied with the library service. However, it appears that women are slightly more likely to feel this way, than men. The main reasons* for being not very satisfied with the District's libraries are ... • don't like new library/old library better, mentioned by 5% of all residents, • needs improving/better range of books/opening hours, 3%. * multiple responses allowed 52 Satisfaction With Library Service Very Fairly Very/Fairly satisfied satisfied satisfied % % % Not very Don’t satisfied know % % Overall 65 11 24 51 20 71 6 23 2016 45 28 73 7 20 2015† 66 18 84 1 16 2014† 62 19 81 1 17 2013† 69 16 85 1 15 2012 66 21 87 2 11 2011 68 14 82 1 17 2010* 51 32 83 3 14 2009 68 17 85 2 13 2008 68 18 86 1 13 2007 66 19 85 2 13 2006 65 19 84 4 12 2005 66 19 85 3 12 2004 69 19 88 3 9 2003 68 20 88 5 7 2002 68 16 84 4 12 2001 73 15 88 2 10 2000 68 19 87 2 11 54 29 83 13 4 69 17 86 1 13 National Average 69 17 86 3 11 Male 35 29 64 7 29 Female† 42 25 67 14 20 Total District 2018 38 2017 Users 27 Comparison Peer Group (Provincial) Gender % read across * 2010 survey not conducted by NRB † does not add to 100% due to rounding 53 Library Service * 2010 survey not conducted by NRB Recommended Satisfaction Measures For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 65% Users = 83% 54 xii. Event Promotion Overall Users/Visitors Base = 311 65% of residents overall are satisfied with the event promotion (84% in 2017), including 31% who are very satisfied (44% in 2017), while 24% are not very satisfied. There are no comparative Peer Group and National Averages for this reading, however, the not very satisfied reading is 14% above last year's result. 80% of households have used or visited an event venue (ie, Events Centre, Convention Centre, International Stadium, Soundshell, Civic Theatre, Tearooms and Sportsdrome) in the last 12 months. Of these, 66% are satisfied (87% in 2017) and 26% not very satisfied (9% in 2017). Residents more likely to be not very satisfied are ... • residents aged 45 to 64 years, • longer term residents, those residing in the District more than 10 years. The main reasons* for being not very satisfied are ... • could do more promotion/better advertising/earlier advertising, mentioned by 10% of all residents, • Mudtopia Festival/waste of money, 7%, • too much/shouldn't be at expense of ratepayers, 5%, • need better events/encourage more events/more venues, 5%. * multiple responses allowed NB: no other reason mentioned by more than 3% of all residents 55 Satisfaction With Event Promotion Very Fairly Very/Fairly satisfied satisfied satisfied % % % Not very Don’t satisfied know % % Overall* 34 65 Total District 2018 31 2017 44 40 84 10 6 2016 38 40 78 2015 44 37 81 13 6 2014 44 41 85 9 6 2013 45 40 85 9 6 2012†† 42 44 86 8 6 2011 45 38 83 10 7 2010** 39 46 85 8 7 2009 53 30 83 9 8 2008 55 30 85 8 7 2007 55 32 87 6 7 Users/Visitors 32 34 24 11 12 10 66 26 8 Age 18-44 years 35 36 71 20 9 45-64 years† 26 30 56 36 9 65+ years† 34 37 71 13 17 70 15 15 Length of Residence Lived there 10 years or less 39 31 Lived there more than 10 years† 30 34 64 26 9 % read across * not asked prior to 2007 ** 2010 survey not conducted by NRB † does not add to 100% due to rounding †† readings prior to 2012 refer to ratings for event and tourism promotion of Rotorua 56 Event Promotion readings prior to 2012 refer to ratings for event and tourism promotion of Rotorua ** 2010 survey not conducted by NRB † Recommended Satisfaction Measures For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 65% Users/Visitors = 66% 57 xiii. Rotorua Aquatic Centre Overall Users/Visitors Base = 192 51% of all residents are satisfied with the Rotorua Aquatic Centre (64% in 2017). 28% are not very satisfied and 22% are unable to comment. The percent not very satisfied with the Aquatic Centre is above the Peer Group and National Averages and 14% above the 2017 reading. 57% of households have used or visited the Rotorua Aquatic Centre in the last 12 months (52% in 2017). Of these "users/visitors", 63% are satisfied (73% in 2017) and 34% are not very satisfied (22% in 2017). Residents more likely to be not very satisfied are ... • • • • women, residents aged 18 to 44 years, residents who live in a three or more person household, residents with an annual household income of $45,000 or more, in particular, those with an annual household income of more than $75,000, • longer term residents, those residing in the District more than 10 years. The main reasons* for being not very satisfied with the Aquatic Centre are ... • needs an upgrade/facilities need improving, mentioned by 17% of all residents, • need more recreational facilities/hydroslides/fun things, 5%, • change in management, 4%. * multiple responses allowed NB: no other reason is mentioned by more than 2% of all residents 58 Satisfaction With Rotorua Aquatic Centre Very Fairly Very/Fairly satisfied satisfied satisfied % % % Not very Don’t satisfied know % % Overall Total District 2018† 24 27 51 28 22 2017 31 33 64 14 22 2016 36 34 70 12 18 2015 31 38 69 12 19 2014 39 30 69 12 19 2013† 39 34 73 7 19 2012 38 34 72 11 17 2011 41 33 74 10 16 2010* 34 41 75 7 18 2009 50 30 80 7 13 2008 51 30 81 6 13 2007 47 29 76 7 17 2006 54 27 81 7 12 2005 55 22 77 7 16 2004 50 28 78 6 16 2003 44 28 72 9 19 2002 37 32 69 10 21 2001 47 28 75 6 19 2000 43 26 69 10 21 33 30 63 34 3 43 28 71 9 20 National Average 38 30 68 8 24 Male 24 28 52 22 26 Female 24 26 50 33 17 Users/Visitors Comparison* Peer Group (Provincial) Gender continued ... 59 Satisfaction With Rotorua Aquatic Centre (continued) Very Fairly Very/Fairly satisfied satisfied satisfied % % % Not very Don’t satisfied know % % Age 18-44 years† 21 28 49 39 13 45-64 years† 28 27 55 21 25 65+ years 27 22 49 13 38 1-2 person household† 30 22 52 15 34 3+ person household 20 30 50 38 12 Household Size Household Income Less than $45,000 pa 34 27 61 12 27 $45,000-$75,000 pa 22 27 49 26 25 More than $75,000 19 27 46 37 17 Length of Residence Lived there 10 years or less 26 28 54 19 27 Lived there more than 10 years 24 26 50 30 20 % read across * Peer Group and National Averages are based on ratings of public swimming pools * 2010 survey not conducted by NRB † does not add to 100% due to rounding 60 Rotorua Aquatic Centre * 2010 survey not conducted by NRB Recommended Satisfaction Measures For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 51% Users/Visitors = 63% 61 xiv. Promotion Of Rotorua As A Destination To Visit Overall 85% of residents overall are satisfied with the promotion of Rotorua as a destination to visit (92% in 2017), including 47% who are very satisfied (57% in 2017), while 8% are unable to comment (4% in 2017). The percent not very satisfied (7%) is below the Peer Group Average and National Average readings for tourism promotion. There are no notable differences between socio-economic groups, in terms of those residents not very satisfied with the promotion of Rotorua as a destination to visit. The main reasons* for being not very satisfied are ... • not promoted enough/need more/better promotion, mentioned by 3% of all residents, • not Council function, 2%. * multiple responses allowed 62 Satisfaction With The Promotion Of Rotorua As A Destination To Visit Very Fairly Very/Fairly satisfied satisfied satisfied % % % Not very Don’t satisfied know % % Overall* 85 7 8 57 35 92 4 4 2016 52 39 91 5 4 2015† 53 32 85 5 9 2014† 53 32 85 6 8 2013† 47 40 87 6 8 49 40 89 6 6 40 38 78 14 8 National Average 28 38 66 Total District 2018 47 2017 2012 38 Comparison** Peer Group (Provincial) 16 18 % read across * not asked prior to 2012 (previously asked satisfaction re: event and tourism promotion of Rotorua see pages 54-56) ** Peer Group and National Average readings refer to ratings for tourism promotion † does not add to 100% due to rounding 63 Promotion Of Rotorua As A Destination To Visit * not asked prior to 2012 (previously asked satisfaction re: event and tourism promotion of Rotorua) Recommended Satisfaction Measures For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 85% 64 xv. Promotion Of Rotorua As A Destination To Live, Work And Invest Overall 62% of residents are satisfied with the promotion of Rotorua as a destination to live, work and invest (70% in 2017), with 19% being not very satisfied (11% in 2017). 20% are unable to comment. The percent not very satisfied is below the Peer Group Average and slightly below the National Average readings for the promotion of job opportunities. There are no notable differences between socio-economic groups, in terms of those residents not very satisfied with the promotion of Rotorua as a destination to live, work and invest. However, it appears that men are slightly more likely, than women, to feel this way. The main reasons* for being not very satisfied are ... • • • • housing issues, mentioned by 5% of all residents, not promoted enough/could do more/more advertising, 4%, not enough work/locals not employed, 4%, not happening/never seen anything/no promotions/advertising, 3%. * multiple responses allowed 65 Satisfaction With Promotion Of Rotorua As A Destination To Live, Work And Invest Very Fairly Very/Fairly satisfied satisfied satisfied % % % Not very Don’t satisfied know % % Overall* Total District 2018† 17 45 62 19 20 2017 27 43 70 11 19 2016 23 45 68 18 14 2015 17 42 59 20 21 2014† 16 41 57 23 19 19 44 63 18 19 18 49 67 16 17 2013 2012†† 2011 6 36 42 19 39 2010** 8 41 49 13 38 2009 9 32 41 15 44 2008 12 41 53 11 36 2007 18 36 54 6 40 2006 13 42 55 11 34 2005 15 38 53 6 41 2004 12 34 46 10 44 2003 14 30 44 9 47 2002 11 32 43 13 44 2001 10 30 40 16 44 Peer Group (Provincial)† 9 32 41 26 34 National Average 39 24 37 Male 13 46 59 22 19 Female 20 44 64 16 20 Comparison†† 7 32 Gender % read across * not asked in 2000 ** 2010 survey not conducted by NRB † does not add to 100% due to rounding †† readings prior to 2012 and Peer Group and National Averages refer to satisfaction with the promotion of job opportunities 66 Promotion Of Rotorua As A Destination To Live, Work And Invest * 2010 survey not conducted by NRB † readings prior to 2012 refer to satisfaction with the promotion of job opportunities Recommended Satisfaction Measures For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 62% 67 xvi. Public Toilets Overall Users Base = 264 46% of Rotorua District residents are satisfied with the District's public toilets, while 37% are not very satisfied and 17% are unable to comment (20% in 2017). The percent not very satisfied with public toilets is above the Peer Group and National Averages and similar to the 2017 reading. 69% of households have used a public toilet in the last 12 months. Of these "users", 53% are satisfied and 43% not very satisfied. Residents more likely to be not very satisfied with the District's public toilets are ... • • • • women, residents aged 18 to 44 years, NZ Māori residents, residents who live in a three or more person household. The main reasons* for being not very satisfied with the District's public toilets are ... • dirty/smelly/disgusting/gross/need cleaning more often, mentioned by 17% of all residents, • old/rundown/poor condition/need maintenance/upgrading, 15%, • not enough toilets/need more, 14%. * multiple responses allowed NB: no other reason mentioned by more than 3% of all residents 68 Satisfaction With Public Toilets Very Fairly Very/Fairly satisfied satisfied satisfied % % % Not very satisfied % Don’t know % Overall* Total District 2018 9 37 46 37 17 2017† 10 36 46 35 20 2016 11 42 53 29 18 2015 13 43 56 28 16 2014 18 40 58 21 22 2013 12 44 56 31 13 2012 13 43 56 27 17 2011 14 48 62 20 18 8 46 54 26 19 † 2010** † 2009 11 39 50 35 15 2008 11 40 51 33 16 2007 14 44 58 29 13 2006 10 44 54 32 14 53 43 4 Users 12 41 Comparison 32 37 69 19 12 National Average 26 41 67 17 16 Male 12 43 55 31 14 Female 7 32 39 41 20 9 44 44 12 49 31 21 Peer Group (Provincial) Gender Age 18-44 years 45-64 years† 65+ years 35 10 39 9 40 49 28 23 Ethnicity NZ European 8 36 44 33 23 NZ Māori 9 37 46 47 7 13 38 51 28 21 3+ person household 7 36 43 43 14 Household Size 1-2 person household % read across * not asked prior to 2006 ** 2010 survey not conducted by NRB † does not add to 100% due to rounding 69 Public Toilets ** 2010 survey not conducted by NRB Recommended Satisfaction Measures For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 46% Users = 53% 70 xvii. Cycling Facilities In The District Overall Users Base = 137 70% of residents are satisfied with the cycling facilities in the District, including 46% who are very satisfied (50% in 2017). 21% are not very satisfied and 9% are unable to comment. There are no comparative Peer Group and National Averages for this facility, however, the not very satisfied reading is on par with the 2017 result. 42% of households have used cycling facilities in the last 12 months (45% in 2017). Of these, 90% are satisfied and 8% not very satisfied. There are no notable differences between socio-economic groups, in terms of those residents not very satisfied with cycling facilities in the District. However, it appears that men are slightly more likely to feel this way, than women. The main reasons* for being not very satisfied with cycling facilities in the District are ... • not utilised, mentioned by 9% of all residents, • waste of money/money spent, 7%, • not enough cycling facilities/cycle lanes/need more, 5%. * multiple responses allowed NB: no other reason mentioned by more than 3% of all residents 71 Satisfaction With Cycling Facilities In The District Very Fairly Very/Fairly satisfied satisfied satisfied % % % Not very Don’t satisfied know % % Overall* 46 2017 50 22 72 2016† 51 28 79 16 6 2015† 63 26 89 5 7 2014 64 20 84 6 10 2013 57 23 80 10 10 2012 51 31 82 7 11 2011† 36 28 64 14 21 26 34 60 19 21 90 8 1 2010** 24 70 21 9 Total District 2018 Users† 69 21 17 11 Gender Male† 13 46 58 22 19 Female 20 44 64 16 20 % read across * not asked prior to 2010 ** 2010 survey not conducted by NRB † does not add to 100% due to rounding 72 Cycling Facilities In The District ** 2010 survey not conducted by NRB Recommended Satisfaction Measures For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 70% Users = 90% 73 xviii. Appearance And Cleanliness Of The Rotorua City Centre Overall 93% of all residents are satisfied with the appearance and cleanliness of the Rotorua City Centre, including 59% who are very satisfied (51% in 2017). The percent not very satisfied (7%) is below the Peer Group and National Averages for litter control in general and similar to the 2017 reading. Non-ratepayers are more likely to be not very satisfied with the appearance and cleanliness of the Rotorua City Centre, than ratepayers. The main reasons* for being not very satisfied are ... • dirty/untidy/rubbish around, mentioned by 2% of all residents, • empty shops/CBD sad and quiet, 2%. * multiple responses allowed 74 Satisfaction With Appearance And Cleanliness Of Rotorua City Centre Very Fairly Very/Fairly satisfied satisfied satisfied % % % Not very Don’t satisfied know % % Overall* 93 7 51 42 93 6 1 2016 53 41 94 6 - 2015 59 35 94 6 - 2014 57 36 93 6 1 2013 53 41 94 5 1 2012 60 37 97 2 1 2011† 60 37 97 4 - 53 43 96 4 - 34 78 18 4 Total District 2018 59 2017 2010** 34 - Comparison†† Peer Group (Provincial) 44 National Average 36 45 † 81 16 4 Ratepayer? Ratepayer 60 35 95 5 - Non-ratepayer 56 27 83 16 - † % read across * not asked prior to 2010 ** 2010 survey not conducted by NRB † does not add to 100% due to rounding †† Peer Group and National Averages are based on ratings for litter control in general 75 Appearance And Cleanliness Of Rotorua City Centre ** 2010 survey not conducted by NRB Recommended Satisfaction Measures For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 93% 76 b. Satisfaction With Rubbish Collection - Residents Provided With Service Residents were asked if, where they live, they are provided with a regular rubbish collection service and, if so, then asked for their level of satisfaction. i. Rubbish Collection Service Provided Base = 360 90% of residents say Council provides a regular rubbish collection service where they live. Of these, 93% are satisfied, including 69% who are very satisfied, while 6% are not very satisfied. These readings are similar to the 2017 results. The percent not very satisfied is slightly below the Peer Group Average and on par with the National Average. There are no notable differences between socio-economic groups, in terms of those residents† not very satisfied. The main reasons* for being not very satisfied are ... • damage to bins, mentioned by 2% of residents who are provided, by Council, with a regular rubbish collection service, • collection times, 1%, • collectors could improve, 1%, • no kerbside service, 1%, • dislike bins/prefer bags, 1%. * multiple responses allowed † residents who say Council provides a regular rubbish collection service where they live, N=360 77 Satisfaction With Rubbish Collection Very Fairly Very/Fairly satisfied satisfied satisfied % % % Not very Don’t satisfied know % % Residents Provided With A Regular Rubbish Collection 2018 69 24 93 6 1 2017† 71 23 94 7 2016 74 17 91 8 1 2015 75 20 95 4 1 2014 76 15 91 7 2 2013 78 16 94 6 2012 79 16 95 4 1 2011 71 23 94 4 2 2010*† 68 25 93 6 2 2009 66 24 90 8 2 2008 68 22 90 9 1 2007 69 25 94 6 2006 55 38 93 6 1 2005 63 32 95 4 1 2004 58 35 93 6 1 2003 62 30 92 7 1 2002 69 25 94 5 1 2001 68 23 91 8 1 2000 71 21 92 7 1 62 23 85 12 3 National Average 58 30 88 - - - Comparison Peer Group (Provincial) % read across * 2010 survey not conducted by NRB † does not add to 100% due to rounding Base = 360 9 3 78 Rubbish Collection (Receivers Of Service) * 2010 survey not conducted by NRB Recommended Satisfaction Measures For Reporting Purposes: Receivers of Service = 93% 79 Sent, 2. RATES ISSUES 80 a. Satisfaction With The Way Rates Are Spent On The Services And Facilities Council Provides Overall Ratepayers Base = 345 84% of residents identify themselves as ratepayers (90% in 2017). Overall, 63% of residents are satisfied with the way rates are spent on the services and facilities provided by Council (71% in 2017). 33% of all residents are not very satisfied with the way rates are spent and this is above the Peer Group and National Averages and 8% above the 2017 reading. 64% of ratepayers are satisfied with the way rates are spent (72% in 2017), while 35% are not very satisfied (26% in 2017). Ratepayers are more likely to be not very satisfied with the way rates are spent on the services and facilities provided by Council, than non-ratepayers. The main reasons residents are not very satisfied are ... • overspending/wasting money/debt/spending priorities, mentioned by 10% of all residents, • high rates/increases/too high for services received/not value for money/unfair, 7% • more spending on infrastructure/specific services/facilities needing attention, 7%, • roading/footpath/traffic issues needing attention, 6%. 81 Satisfaction With The Way Rates Are Spent On Services And Facilities Very Fairly Very/Fairly satisfied satisfied satisfied % % % Not very Don’t satisfied know % % Overall 53 63 33 4 Total District 2018 10 2017† 11 60 71 25 5 2016 9 55 64 31 5 2015 10 61 71 23 6 2014 14 58 72 22 6 2013† 10 65 75 19 5 2012 13 65 78 19 3 2011 12 58 70 24 6 2010* 13 65 78 16 6 2009 8 64 72 22 6 2008 10 68 78 16 6 2007 16 55 71 21 8 2006 13 64 77 18 5 2005 13 72 85 10 5 2004 14 63 77 15 8 2003 17 65 82 11 7 2002 21 62 83 11 6 2001 22 60 82 11 7 2000 20 58 78 15 7 13 59 72 24 4 National Average 10 60 70 25 5 Comparison Peer Group (Provincial) Ratepayer?† Ratepayer Non-ratepayer 9 55 15 47 64 35 2 62 % read across * 2010 survey not conducted by NRB † does not add to 100% due to rounding Recommended Satisfaction Measures For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 63% Ratepayers = 64% 24 13 82 Sent, 3. LOCAL ISSUES 83 a. i. Council Consultation And Community Involvement Satisfaction With The Opportunities To Be Involved And Participate In The Way Council Makes Decisions Overall 9% of residents are very satisfied with the opportunities to be involved and participate in the way Council makes decisions (5% in 2017), and 33% are satisfied. 5% of residents are very dissatisfied with the process and 15% are dissatisfied. 5% are unable to comment and 34% are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (37% in 2017). The dissatisfied/very dissatisfied reading (20%) is similar to the Peer Group and National Averages†. NZ European residents are more likely to be very satisfied/satisfied, than NZ Māori residents. There are no notable differences between socio-economic groups, in terms of those residents who are dissatisfied/very dissatisfied. Peer Group and National Averages refer to satisfaction with the way Council involves the public in the decisions it makes † 84 Satisfaction With The Way Council Involves The Public In The Decisions It Makes Neither Very satisfied Dissatisfied/ Very satisfied/ nor Very Very Don’t satisfied Satisfied Satisfied dissatisfied Dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied know % % % % % % % % Overall* Total District 2018† 9 33 42 34 15 5 20 5 2017 5 33 38 37 14 5 19 6 2016 7 37 43 31 16 5 21 4 2015† 5 26 31 34 20 8 28 6 2014 5 38 43 33 18 4 22 2 2013† 4 28 32 41 19 5 24 4 † 2012 4 36 40 36 18 5 23 2 2011 4 37 41 28 22 6 28 3 2010**† 4 41 45 24 23 5 28 5 2009 5 42 47 29 16 6 22 2 2008 3 40 43 33 14 4 18 6 2007 7 38 45 25 22 4 26 4 2006 5 36 41 33 19 4 23 3 2005 5 55 60 28 7 2 9 3 2004 6 43 49 30 14 2 16 5 2003 8 48 56 2002 7 53 60 25 7 3 10 5 2001 6 44 50 31 11 2 13 6 27 11 - 11 6 Comparison* Peer Group Average 7 40 47 29 17 3 20 4 National Average 7 38 45 28 17 5 22 5 Ethnicity† NZ European 10 35 45 31 15 6 21 4 NZ Māori 2 28 30 42 18 4 22 7 % read across * readings prior to 2016 and Peer Group and National Averages relate to "satisfaction with the way Council involves the public in the decisions it makes" ** 2010 survey not conducted by NRB † does not add to 100% due to rounding 85 b. Residents' Impressions of Council Decisions/Actions Summary Table: Residents' Impressions of Council Decisions/Actions Strongly Disapprove/ Strongly approve/ Strongly Strongly Don't approve Approve Approve Disapprove disapprove disapprove know % % % % % % % Overall Total District 2018† 4 51 55 29 9 38 8 2017† 3 56 59 30 6 36 6 2016 4 45 49 30 13 43 8 2015 5 45 50 29 10 39 11 2014 7 63 70 16 4 20 10 2013 2 51 53 26 8 34 13 2012 3 63 66 21 4 25 9 2011 1 53 54 29 7 36 10 2010*† 4 58 62 19 4 23 16 2009 2 64 66 20 3 23 11 2008 2 70 72 13 3 16 12 2007 7 57 64 19 4 23 13 2006 4 66 70 18 3 21 9 Age 18-44 years 3 61 64 19 7 26 10 45-64 years 6 40 46 34 14 48 6 65+ years† 3 46 49 43 5 47 4 Household Size 1-2 person household 4 44 48 34 11 45 7 3+ person household 4 57 61 24 7 31 8 Ratepayer? Ratepayer 3 50 53 30 9 39 8 Non-ratepayer 67 19 7 26 7 10 % read across * 2010 survey not conducted by NRB † does not add to 100% due to rounding 57 86 When asked their impression of the decisions and/or actions of Council in the last 12 months, 55% approve (strongly approve/approve) (59% in 2017), and 38% disapprove (disapprove/strongly disapprove). 8% are unable to comment. Residents more likely to approve (strongly approve/approve) of the decisions and/or actions of Council in the last 12 months are ... • residents aged 18 to 44 years, • residents who live in a three or more person household, • non-ratepayers. 87 c. Satisfaction With Quality Of Information Overall 11% of residents are very satisfied, in general, with the quality of information (6% in 2017), with 43% being satisfied (46% in 2017), while 14% of residents are dissatisfied (10% in 2017) and 3% are very dissatisfied. 25% of residents are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (31% in 2017). There are no notable differences between socio-economic groups, in terms of those residents who are very satisfied/satisfied. However, it appears that residents aged 65 years or over are slightly more likely to be satisfied, than other age groups. 88 Satisfaction In General With Quality Of Information Neither Very satisfied Dissatisfied/ Very satisfied/ nor Very Very Don’t satisfied Satisfied Satisfied dissatisfied Dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied know % % % % % % % % Overall* 2018 11 43 54 25 14 3 17 4 2017† 6 46 52 31 10 2 12 6 7 51 58 27 9 2 11 4 2016 Age 18-44 years 12 41 53 28 12 3 15 4 45-64 years 10 40 50 23 18 4 22 5 65+ years 10 53 63 21 13 2 15 1 * 2016 readings refer to residents who are aware of information N=395 † does not add to 100% due to rounding * * * * * 89 E.  APPENDIX Base by Sub-sample *Expected numbers Actual according to respondents population interviewed distribution Gender Male 200 Female 201 214 Age 18-44 years 120 189 45-64 years 121 140 65+ years 160 72 282 244 70 102 187 One resident refused to give details of their age Ethnicity† NZ European NZ Māori * Interviews are intentionally conducted in approximately equal numbers in each Area, even though the populations may differ from Area to Area. This is done to give a relatively robust sample base within each Area. Post stratification (weighting) is then applied to adjust back to population proportions in order to yield correctly balanced overall percentages. This is accepted statistical procedure. Also please refer to pages 2 to 4. Seven respondents identified themselves as Pacific Islanders, 17 as Asians, and 22 as 'Other' ethnicities. Three respondents refused to state their ethnicity. † * * * * *