Issuu on Google+

CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA REPORT Subject:

2012 COMMUNITY SATISFACTION SURVEY REPORT

Recommendation: That the 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey be received as information. Report Summary: The City of St. Albert conducts a Community Satisfaction Survey every other year as of 2010 to gauge public opinion and community perceptions about City programs, services and facilities. It is one of many important tools to help with benchmarking, identifying issues of importance and future planning. Legislative History: On December 9, 2010 during the budget deliberations the following postponed motion was passed: (PM60-10) That the Community Satisfaction Survey be done every two years, beginning in 2012 and that the Corporate Communications "Contracted and General" Services Budget be reduced by $25,000 in 2011. Report: Banister Research and Consulting Inc. conducted the 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey from April 30 to May 9, 2012. A total of 800 telephone interviews took place with residents 18 years of age or older. To ensure the survey sample provided sufficient coverage and accuracy, 200 interviews were conducted within each of the northwest, northeast, southwest and southeast quadrants of St. Albert. The results provide a margin of error no greater than +/-3.5% at the 95% confidence level, or 19 times out of 20. Some of the key findings show: •

99% of participating residents said the overall quality of life in St. Albert is very good (62%) or good (37%). Over the past three years, 71% say their quality of life has stayed the same; 14% said it improved while 13% said it worsened. Factors contributing to a high quality of life include the City’s ample green space and trail system, a feeling this is a safe place to live, availability of services (including community and public services and facilities). Contributing to a feeling of worsening in quality of life are high taxes, concerns with crime and with city governance. Fewer people agreed (69%) in 2012 than in 2010 (91%) that St. Albert is a safe place to live, with a shift toward a more neutral position (23% in 2012 vs. 7% in 2010). The top issues cited were youth vandalism/vandalism (43%), drugs in the community (32%) and theft/burglary (25%). 57% of people indicated they receive good/very good/excellent value for their municipal tax dollars, compared to 68% in 2010; while 32% said fair value and 10% said poor value. Factors contributing toward a positive response include satisfaction with services provided, City Council Agenda July 16, 2012Page 1 File No.:255-33


• • • • •

quality of snow removal services, and better services than in other cities. Factors contributing to a fair or poor response include rising taxes, higher taxes than in other communities for the same services/facilities, and excessive spending. The tax strategy most supported (by 65% of respondents) is inflationary tax increase to maintain services, comparable to 2010. Almost half (45%) of respondents agree that Council plans effectively for the future, compared to 59% in 2010, with a significant increase in the neutral responses. The most important issue for Council today was thought to be industrial development/economic development (cited by 21% of respondents) followed by lack of strong tax base/more industry (mentioned by 15%). The top priority for the City for the next 12 months was tied equally between economic development and community development (each mentioned by 56% of residents). Most residents surveyed (64%) agree that the City is accountable for leadership and good governance. Over half (54%) agree that the City works effectively with community groups to deliver events and programs; and that the City practices open and accountable government (53%); and makes informed decisions (52%). About half agreed that the City does its best with the money available (47%) while two out of five agreed it takes residents’ views into consideration (40%). Between one-fifth and one-third were neutral in their view about all these statements. However, over a third of residents disagreed that the City takes residents’ views into consideration, and close to one-fifth disagreed that the City makes informed decisions or practices open and accountable government.

Satisfaction with City services/programs/facilities: • 60% of respondents are satisfied to a certain extent with how the City is run, 25% were neutral and 16% disagree. • About two-thirds of residents polled had been in contact with the City and 84% were very or somewhat satisfied with their experience. • The majority of respondents expressed some level of satisfaction with the services provided by the City (83%) which declined by 4% since 2010, with more people feeling neutral (14%). • The City measured satisfaction levels with 35 of its services/programs/facilities. Key changes in satisfaction since 2010 include: o Overall satisfaction with garbage collection fell to 73% in 2012 from 85% in 2010. Half of the comments by those who are dissatisfied relate to the frequency of pick up and 15% thought the service pricey. However, 4% more people were very satisfied with blue bag curbside recycling. o More (5%) residents agree that the City is committed to the environment (78% vs. 73% in 2010). o Satisfaction increased by 8% with winter road maintenance (74% vs. 68% in 2010). o Fewer (5%) residents were very satisfied with RCMP although overall satisfaction remained comparable to 2010. o Fewer (7%) residents are satisfied with emergency and fire services (86% vs. 93% in 2010). Reasons cited relate to non-municipal factors, such as hospital waiting times, wait for ambulances and insufficient ambulances. • The top three services/programs/facilities in terms of satisfaction* are o Parks & trail system (4.56) o The Arden Theatre (4.42) o Blue Bag Curbside Recycling (4.34) • The top three services/programs/facilities in terms of importance* are o Emergency medical and fire services (4.86) o RCMP police services (4.70) o Garbage collection services (4.60) • Satisfaction* with all 35 services/programs/facilities were compared to their respective ranking in terms of importance*. All services/programs/facilities ranked above 3 in both satisfaction and importance. The City has set a target rate of 4 for satisfaction; and correspondingly looked at all services/programs/facilities that were rated 4 or higher in City Council Agenda July 16, 2012/Page 2 File No.: 255-33


terms of importance, to determine priorities for action to improve satisfaction. Thus, priority areas are : o Attracting and supporting local businesses o Land use planning and approvals o Winter road maintenance o St. Albert Public Transit o Garbage collection services o Summer road maintenance o Family and Community Support Services o Traffic safety and parking enforcement o Community standards enforcement * The ranking scale was 1-5, where 1=not at all important/very dissatisfied and 5=critically important/very satisfied.

Preferred methods to get City information: • The St. Albert Gazette remains the top information source for news about the City, with 91% of respondents referencing it. The City website, www.stalbert.ca is a source for almost a third of residents. Its use has increased in importance since 2010 when it was used by 5% of respondents compared to 22% in 2012. Watching Council meetings on TV increased from 1% in 2010 to 10% in 2012. Citylights (the City’s weekly advertising feature in the St. Albert Gazette and St. Albert Leader): • Citylights is read by 87% of respondents with some frequency, including 37% of people who always read it. Almost all (91%) of respondents find it valuable to some extent, with 38% very valuable, an increase of 12% over 2010. For complete results on all survey questions, please refer to the attached final report. Link to Council or Corporate Objectives: Corporate Objective link: Deliver programs and services that meet or exceed our standards Council Priority: Governance – Planning & Reporting – Enhance evidence based decision making through the development of a corporate level scorecard and municipal analytics. Financial Implications: The expenses related to the survey were included in the 2012 budget. Legal Implications: All responses to the survey are anonymous. Attachments: 1. 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey 2. Addendum-City of St. Albert 2012 as Compared to Select Alberta Municipalities 2008 to 2012 3. Addendum-2012 Resident Survey – Seniors’ Perceived Quality Of Life

Report Date Originating Department Prepared by: Approved by City Manager Review

June 18, 2012 Corporate Communications & Marketing Maya Pungur-Buick Jennifer Jennax Patrick Draper

City Council Agenda July 16, 2012/Page 3 File No.: 255-33


ATTACHMENT 1

CITY OF ST. ALBERT

2012 Community Satisfaction Survey Final Report May 30, 2012


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ................................................................................................................... I 1.0 STUDY BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................... 1 2.0 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 SURVEY POPULATION AND DATA COLLECTION ..................................................................... 2 2.2 DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................... 3 STUDY FINDINGS .................................................................................................................... 4 3.0 3.1 RESIDENTS PERCEIVED QUALITY OF LIFE IN ST. ALBERT ...................................................... 4 3.2 OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH CITY OF ST. ALBERT SERVICES, FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS 8 3.3 SATISFACTION WITH ST. ALBERT SERVICES .......................................................................... 9 3.3.1 PARKS AND TRAIL SYSTEM AND RECREATION....................................................................... 9 3.3.2 DISPOSAL SERVICES ............................................................................................................ 11 3.3.3 PROTECTIVE SERVICES ........................................................................................................ 17 3.3.4 ROAD MAINTENANCE SERVICES .......................................................................................... 22 3.3.5 PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICES .................................................................................................. 24 3.3.6 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................... 25 3.3.7 CULTURAL SERVICES AND LIBRARY .................................................................................... 28 SATISFACTION WITH ST. ALBERT OPERATED FACILITIES .................................................... 30 3.4 3.5 SATISFACTION WITH ST. ALBERT PROGRAMS ...................................................................... 47 3.6 OVERALL IMPORTANCE AND SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS ....................................................... 50 3.6.1 SUGGESTED CHANGES OR IMPROVEMENTS TO CITY SERVICES ............................................ 53 3.7 CONTACT WITH CITY OF ST. ALBERT EMPLOYEES............................................................... 55 3.7.1 SATISFACTION WITH CITY EMPLOYEES................................................................................ 56 3.8 PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY IN ST. ALBERT ............................................................................. 57 3.9 NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................... 59 3.10 VIEWS TOWARDS PROPERTY TAXES .................................................................................... 63 3.11 MUNICIPAL LEADERSHIP ..................................................................................................... 67 3.12 TOP PRIORITIES FOR THE CITY OF ST. ALBERT .................................................................... 71 3.13 CITY NEWS AND PROMOTIONS............................................................................................. 72 3.14 RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS ......................................................................................... 75

Appendix A – Survey Instrument

Final Report


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Overall Satisfaction with City Services and Facilities

In support of its values of open dialogue and collaborative relationships, the City of St. Albert is committed to conducting an annual citizen survey, to ensure that satisfaction with various aspects of living in the community are maintained or increased. Overall, results of the 2012 survey showed that satisfaction levels for all measures remained high, including the overall quality of life and the services provided by City employees. Significant increases were seen in areas such as satisfaction with the blue bag curbside recycling program, winter road maintenance, heritage sites and Woodlands Water Play Park. Specific findings include:

The majority of respondents (83%) indicated they were satisfied overall with the services, facilities and programs provided by the City of St. Albert.

Satisfaction levels with services were highest for the parks and trail system (92%), blue bag curbside recycling (83%), and emergency medical and fire services (82%).

With respect to City facilities, satisfaction levels were highest regarding the Arden Theatre (92%), Fountain Park Recreation Centre (89%), the St. Albert Public Library (86%) and Woodlands Water Play Park (86%).

Four-fifths (80%) of respondents indicated they were satisfied with recreational programs and activities, followed by cultural programs and events (78%) and Family and Community Support Services (62%).

Compared to 2010, there was a significant increase in overall satisfaction levels for Blue Bag Curbside Recycling (4% increase), winter road maintenance (6% increase), heritage sites (4% increase) and Woodlands Water Play Park (6% increase).

Quality of Life •

Ninety-nine percent (99%) of respondents rated the overall quality of life in St. Albert as good (37%) or very good (62%).

Fourteen percent (14%) of respondents felt that the quality of life in St. Albert has improved over the past three years, while 71% felt it has stayed the same. Only 13% of respondents felt that the quality of life in St. Albert has worsened in the past three years.

Respondents indicated the most significant factor contributing to a high quality of life in St. Albert was parkland, green spaces, or the river trail system (40%).

The factor most frequently indicated as contributing to a low quality of life in St. Albert was high taxes or tax increases (37%).

Seventy-eight percent (78%) of respondents agreed either strongly (31%) or somewhat (47%) that the City of St. Albert is committed to preserving the environment.

Overall Importance and Service Improvements •

Areas identified as key strengths of St. Albert included: o Parks and trail system; o The Arden Theatre; o Fountain Park Recreation Centre; o Recycling and composting depots; o Blue bag curbside recycling service; o Recreational programs and activities; o Recreational services; o Garbage collection services; i


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

o o o o o •

Sanitary sewer systems; RCMP Police Services; Emergency Medical and Fire Services; St. Albert Public Library programs and services; and St. Albert Public Library facility.

Primary areas of improvement included: o St. Albert Public Transit; o Winter road maintenance; o Summer road maintenance; o Land use planning and approvals; o Traffic safety and parking enforcement; o Attracting and supporting local businesses; and o Family and community support services.

Final Report

Neighbourhood Development •

When asked if there were any issues or areas of improvement within their neighbourhood that they felt residents could work on together in order to help strengthen their neighbourhood, 21% of respondents suggested developing a neighbourhood watch program such as crime watch, citizen patrol or partners in the park.

Over seventy percent (71%) of respondents indicated their neighbourhood would be willing to work together on local issues or projects that would help improve their neighbourhood.

Over three-quarters (79%) of respondents indicated they personally would be willing to participate in the process of resolving key neighbourhood issues or work cooperatively with their neighbours on a local development project.

Over two-thirds of respondents felt a strong sense of belonging (68%) in their neighbourhood, with 29% feeling a very strong sense of belonging and 39% feeling a somewhat strong sense of belonging.

Contact with City of St. Albert Employees •

More than two-thirds (67%) of respondents had been in contact with a City employee over the past year.

City employees were contacted in person (48%), by phone (44%), via email (7%) and by mail or fax (1%).

Respondents that contacted City employees (n=535) were generally satisfied with the service they received (83%), with 64% being very satisfied and 20% being somewhat satisfied.

Perceptions of Safety in St. Albert •

Over half (68%) of respondents agreed St. Albert is a safe place to live, with 29% strongly agreeing and 39% somewhat agreeing, a significant decrease from 91% in 2010.

Issues identified as the greatest safety concerns included youth vandalism (34%), drugs in the community (32%), and theft or burglary (25%).

Views Towards Property Taxes •

Nearly all respondents (95%) owned their home in St. Albert versus renting (4%).

Of these homeowners (n=762), 57% believed they received good, very good or excellent value for their tax dollar, while 32% believed they received fair value, and 10% believed they received poor value for their tax dollar.

When asked why they felt they received excellent, very good or good value for their tax dollar, respondents most frequently mentioned they were satisfied with the services that were provided (17%). ii


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Respondents that believed their tax dollar represents fair or poor value indicated taxes were too high or continue to rise (17%) taxes were high in comparison to services received (15%), and taxes are high compared to other cities or communities with similar facilities and services (15%). The tax strategy supported by the greatest proportion of respondents was an inflationary tax increase to maintain services (65%), followed by a tax decrease to reduce service (13%).

Municipal Leadership •

Respondents identified industrial development and attracting more business and economic development as the most important issue facing St. Albert City Council today (21%).

Forty-five percent (45%) of respondents agreed that City Council is planning for the future of the community, with another 33% neither agreeing nor disagreeing and 20% disagreeing.

More than half (60%) of respondents were very or somewhat satisfied with the way in which St. Albert is currently being run, while 24% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied and 16% were dissatisfied.

Nearly three-quarters (72%) of respondents agreed that the City works effectively with community groups to deliver various events and programs. Seventeen percent (17%) neither agreed nor disagreed and 5% disagreed. Respondents generally agreed that the City is accountable to the community for leadership and good governance (64%). Twenty-two percent (22%) neither agreed nor disagreed with this statement and 14% disagreed.

Final Report

Approximately half (53%) of respondents agreed that the City practices open and accountable government, with 27% neither agreeing nor disagreeing and 18% disagreeing.

Over half (52%) of respondents agreed that the City makes informed decisions, while 26% neither agreed nor disagreed and 18% disagreed.

Almost half (47%) of respondents agreed that the City does the best it can with the money available, while 24% neither agreed nor disagreed and 26% disagreed.

Two out of five respondents (40%) agreed that the City always takes residents’ views into consideration when making decisions. One quarter (25%) of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with this statement and 32% disagreed.

When asked to indicate the top three priorities the City Council should address, respondents most often stated community development (56%), economic development (56%) and governance (25%).

City News and Promotions •

The St. Albert Gazette was the communications medium that respondents most frequently relied on as their primary source of information and news about City Hall and City services, programs and initiatives (75%).

The majority (88%) of respondents indicated they read the Citylights advertising feature either always (37%) or sometimes (40%) and the majority (91%) believed the feature was valuable to some degree.

iii


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

1.0 STUDY BACKGROUND In support of its values of open dialogue and collaborative relationships, the City of St. Albert is committed to conducting an annual citizen survey. The survey enables the City to listen to the opinions and perceptions of citizens to ensure that satisfaction with various aspects of living in the community are maintained or

Final Report

This report outlines the results for the 2012 survey of St. Albert residents, and includes a comparison of the 2006 to 2010 survey results to determine, where appropriate, if there have been shifts in the perceptions and opinions of City of St. Albert residents over the past seven years.

increased. Banister Research & Consulting Inc. was commissioned to conduct the 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey. Similar to surveys in the past, the findings from this year’s survey provide the City of St. Albert with insight into the perceptions and opinions of residents across a number of issues including: ♦ Overall quality of life in the City; ♦ Factors contributing to the City’s quality of life; ♦ Satisfaction with various services, facilities, and programs; ♦ Overall importance of City services; ♦ Contact and satisfaction with City of St. Albert municipal staff; ♦ Safety issues; ♦ Value received for tax dollars; ♦ Satisfaction with municipal leadership; and ♦ City news and promotions.

1


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

2.0 METHODOLOGY The survey instrument utilized in the 2010 survey formed the basis for the instrument utilized in the 2012 survey with some modifications

made to update the study.  The questionnaire was finalized based upon a pretest of 10 interviews with a random sample of respondents. The pretest assessed interview length and flow patterns and identified any problem questions or difficulties in comprehension or wording as well

North East, or east of St. Albert Road and north of the Sturgeon River (communities: Erin Ridge, Oakmont, Inglewood and Erin Ridge North) North West, or west of St. Albert Road and north of the Sturgeon River (communities: Lacombe Park, Mission, North Ridge, Deer Ridge) South West, or south of the Sturgeon River and west of St. Albert Road (communities: Riel, Grandin, Heritage Lakes, Downtown) South East, or south of the Sturgeon River and east of St. Albert Road (communities: Braeside, Woodlands, Kingswood, Pineview, Campbell Park, Akinsdale, Forest Lawn, Sturgeon Heights)

as areas of respondent resistance. A copy of the final questionnaire is City-wide results provide a margin of error no greater than ±3.5%

provided in Appendix A.

2.1

at the 95% confidence level or 19 times out of 20.

Survey Population and Data Collection

Telephone interviews were conducted from April 30th to May 9th, 2012. Banister Research completed a total of 800 telephone interviews with St. Albert citizens 18 years of age or older. To ensure the survey sample provided sufficient accuracy within each quadrant of the City, 200 interviews were conducted within the northwest, northeast, southwest and southeast areas of St. Albert.

In

consultation with the client, City quadrants were established based on the following parameters:

The sampling strategy involved randomly dialing phone numbers from the most recent telephone directory for the City of St. Albert. Quotas were established to ensure equal proportions of male and female respondents. To maximize the sample, a maximum of ten call back attempts were made to each listing prior to excluding it from the final sample. Busy numbers were scheduled for a call back every fifteen minutes. Where there was an answering machine, fax or no answer, the call back was scheduled at a different time period on the following day. 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.

2


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

The table below presents the results of the final call attempts. Using

Findings� portions of the report present selected findings from the

the call summary standard established by the Marketing Research

cross tabulation analysis.

and Intelligence Association, there was a 13% response rate and a 71% refusal rate. These figures do not necessarily measure

Identical to previous survey years, for the analysis, weights were

respondent interest in the subject area.

assigned to the specific quadrant data to ensure that their

Summary of Final Call Attempts Call Classification: Number of Calls: Completed Interviews Busy/No answer/Answering machine/Respondents unavailable Refusals Fax/Modem/Business Not-In-Service/Wrong number Terminated/Language barrier Disqualified/quota full

Total

2.2

800

representation in the City-wide sample was proportionate to their representation in the City of St. Albert 2012 population. The following outlines the weighting factors utilized in this research.

3,881 2,075 153 103 24 63

7,099

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.,

City Quadrant & Population

North East: 10,162 North West: 18,954 South West: 11,853 South East: 19,090

% of Total Population

# of Interviews Completed

Weighting Factor

Representative # of Interviews

17% 32% 20% 32%

200 200 200 200

0.6768 1.2624 0.7894 1.2714

135 252 158 254

It is important to note that this report provides a detailed description of the survey findings based on City-wide weighted results, or all respondents. Residential, quadrant-specific results have been presented based on unweighted results.

overall satisfaction with services, contact with City employees, demographics, etc.). 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

3


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

3.0 STUDY FINDINGS 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

Residents Perceived Quality of Life in St. Albert

Respondents in 2012 were asked to rate their overall quality of life in St. Albert

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to rate the quality of life in St. Albert as good or very good included: •

as very good, good, poor, or very poor. Respondents most often indicated their quality of life was very good (62%), followed by good (37%). See Figure 1, below.

Figure 1

Overall Quality of Life in St. Albert* Very Good

62%

• Good

37%

Poor

1%

Very Poor

<1%

Don't know

<1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Respondents that felt their quality of life had improved or stayed the same over the past 3 years (100% versus 92% of respondents who felt their quality of life worsened); Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (100% versus 97% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that Council effectively plans for the future (100% versus 94% of those that disagree); and Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (100% versus 93% of those that were dissatisfied).

100%

2012 (n=800)

*This question was modified in 2012; therefore, results cannot be compared with previous surveys.

4


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

New in 2012, respondents were asked if their quality of life had improved, stayed the same, or worsened over the past three years. The majority of respondents (71%) indicated that it had stayed the same. In addition, fourteen percent (14%) stated it had improved, whereas 13% stated it had worsened. See Figure 2, below.

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to indicate their quality of life had improved included: •

Figure 2

Do you feel the quality of life in St. Albert in the last three years has…?*

100%

80%

71%

60%

• 40%

20%

• 14%

13% 1%

0% Improved

Stayed the same 2012 (n=800)

Worsened

Don't know

Respondents in South East St. Albert (18% versus 11% of respondents in North West St. Albert); Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (20% versus 6% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that Council effectively plans for the future (16% versus 7% of those that disagree); Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (17% versus 3% of those that were dissatisfied); Respondents age 18 to 34 (25% versus 13% of those age 65 and older); and Respondents with an income greater than or equal to $125,000 (19% versus 13% of respondents with an income of $50, 000 to less than $125, 000).

*New question in 2012.

5


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

When naming the most significant factors contributing to a high quality of life in St. Albert, respondents often stated parkland, green spaces, or a river trail system (40%). Other frequent responses included a safe place to live with a low crime rate and good policing (23%), availability of services, including community services (22%) and availability of options for shopping (20%). See Table 1.

For the third survey year in a row, high taxes or tax increases was named as the most significant factor contributing to a low quality of life in St. Albert (37%), followed by issues with respect to crime (13%). An additional 8% of respondents mentioned issues related to City Council, including not having enough community input with regards to City issues. See Table 2.

Table 1

Table 2

In your opinion, what would you say are the three most significant factors contributing to a high quality of life in the City of St. Albert?

In your opinion, what would you say are the three most significant factors contributing to a low quality of life in the City of St. Albert? Percent of Respondents (n=800)*

Percent of Respondents (n=800)* 2012 2010 2009

2012

2010

2009

37 13

34 15

37 13

8

4

7

7

5

5

Cost of living is high / expensive

6

4

3

High taxes (tax increase)

Parkland / green spaces / river trail system / park system / wildlife / dog parks

40

43

40

Safe place to live / low crime rate / good policing

23

21

25

Availability of services / community services / public facilities

22

20

21

Availability of shopping / amenities / entertainment / restaurants / quality of business

20

23

20

Residential community atmosphere / friendly people / community spirit / small town feel

19

22

24

Size â&#x20AC;&#x201C; not too big, good layout, easy to get around

16

16

19

Availability of recreation / sports facilities and programs

15

16

18

Too much traffic / traffic congestion / too many trucks / noise / speeding service / high fares / want LRT

6

9

7

Beautiful City / nice view / good scenery

13

9

9

Poor transit system / need more

6

7

8

Schools / educational opportunities / extracurricular activities

12

20

17

Poor maintenance of existing facilities and infrastructure

5

4

5

Clean city / clean streets / well maintained

11 10 6

11 7 6

12 8 5

High housing prices / need more affordable housing (including housing for seniors) Nothing / no factors contributing to a low quality of life

5

5

5

5

6

5

Good road maintenance and snow removal Arts and cultural opportunities *Multiple mentions.

Crime / vandalism / youth crime / drugs / drunk driving Governance: need more community input / there are excessive bylaws / better planning (incl. of strip malls and signage) / poor management / not accountable / lack direction Lack of industrial and commercial tax base / need more business diversity / downtown development / accessible land / poor location of businesses

*Multiple mentions.

6


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Seventy-eight percent (78%) of respondents agreed overall that the City of St. Albert is committed to preserving the environment, including 47% who somewhat agreed and 31% who strongly agreed. Results in 2012 provided a statistically significant increase of 5% in overall agreement compared to 2010 (78% versus 73%). See Figure 3, below. Figure 3

Level of Agreement that the City of St. Albert is Committed to Preserving the Environment* 31%

26% 26% 28% 22% 22%

Strongly agree

47%

47% 47% 49% 47% 51%

Somewhat agree 14%

16% 15% 13% 16% 14%

Neutral 7%

9% 9% 6% 10% 10%

Somewhat disagree 1%

2% 3% 4% 5% 3%

Strongly disagree

0% 2012 (n=797) 2008 (n=789)

20%

40% 2010 (n=797) 2007 (n=795)

60%

80%

100%

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to agree the City is committed to preserving the environment included: • Female respondents (82% versus 75% of male respondents); • Respondents that felt their quality of life had improved or stayed the same over the past 3 years (81% versus 59% of respondents who felt their quality of life had worsened); • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (86% versus 66% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); • Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that Council effectively plans for the future (83% versus 56% of those that disagree); • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (84% versus 47% of those that were dissatisfied); and • Respondents age 35 to 54 and 65 or older (81% to 82% versus 72% of those age 55 to 64).

2009 (n=799) 2006 (n=786)

*This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of agreement. It excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know”.

7


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

3.2 Overall Satisfaction with City of St. Albert Services, Facilities and Programs As illustrated in Figure 4, the majority (83%) of respondents expressed satisfaction with services provided by the City of St. Albert overall, 55% being

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

somewhat satisfied and 28% being very satisfied. Less than 3% indicated

Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with St. Albert services included:

some level of dissatisfaction with City services. Results from 2012 showed a significant decrease in overall satisfaction (83% versus 87% in 2010).

• •

Figure 4

Overall Satisfaction with the Services Provided by the City of St. Albert*

28%

29% 28% 28% 27%

Very satisfied

55%

58% 59% 54% 58%

Somewhat satisfied

14%

11% 9% 13% 11%

Neutral 2%

2% 3% 5% 4%

Somewhat dissatisfied

<1%

0% <1% <1% <1%

Very dissatisfied

0% 2012 (n=800)

20% 2010 (n=800)

40% 2009 (n=800)

60%

80%

2008 (n=800)

Female respondents (90% versus 77% of male respondents); Respondents that felt their quality of life had improved or stayed the same over the past 3 years (88% versus 54% of respondents who felt their quality of life had worsened); Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (93% versus 69% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that Council effectively plans for the future (89% versus 62% of those that disagree); Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (90% versus 48% of those that were dissatisfied); and Respondents age 18 to 34 (96% versus 82% of those age 55 to 64).

100%

2007 (n=800)

*in 2012 <1% of respondents indicate they did not know or did not provide a response.

8


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

3.3

Satisfaction with St. Albert Services 3.3.1 Parks and Trail System and Recreation

The vast majority (92%) of respondents were satisfied overall 1 with the parks and trail system in St. Albert, with over one-quarter (27%) being somewhat satisfied and 65% being very satisfied. Overall satisfaction ratings remained comparable to those reported in 2010. See Figure 5, below. Figure 5

Satisfaction with Parks and Trail System*

Final Report

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondents that were significantly more likely to be satisfied with the parks and trail system included: • Respondents that felt their quality of life had improved or stayed the same over the past 3 years (94% versus 79% of respondents who felt their quality of life had worsened); • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (95% versus 89% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); • Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (94% versus 84% of those that disagree); and • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (93% versus 84% of those that were dissatisfied). Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=19) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with the parks and trail system included: • There are some dead trees (n=4); • Not enough trails and parks in St. Albert (n=3); • Trails not being well maintained (n=2); and • Incomplete trails (n=2).

*1% of respondents indicated “Don’t Know”.

1

Somewhat and Very Satisfied

9


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

The majority (82%) of respondents were satisfied overall 2 with the recreation services in St. Albert, with over one third (39%) being very satisfied and 43% being somewhat satisfied. This question was new in 2012. See Figure 6, below. Figure 6

Satisfaction with Recreation Services* 39%

Very satisfied

43%

Somewhat satisfied

13%

Neutral

Somewhat dissatisfied

3%

Very dissatisfied

2% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 (n=769)

*This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of satisfaction. It excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know” *New in 2012

2

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondents that were significantly more likely to be satisfied with the recreation services included: • Respondents that felt their quality of life had improved or stayed the same over the past 3 years (86% versus 57% of respondents who felt their quality of life had worsened); • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (89% versus 73% of those that felt they receive fair or poor value); • Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (86% versus 63% of those that disagree); and • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (85% versus 63% of those that were dissatisfied). Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=38) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with recreation services included: • Servus Place was too expensive to build (29%); • Too expensive / cannot afford to participate (22%); • Too many services offered (7%); • Lack of facilities for children and youth (5%); and • Lack of variety (5%).

Somewhat and Very Satisfied

10


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

3.3.2 Disposal Services As illustrated in Figure 7, below, 73% of respondents were satisfied overall with garbage collection services in St. Albert, with 33% being somewhat

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

satisfied and 40% being very satisfied. Compared to 2010, there was a

Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with garbage collection services included: • Respondents that felt their quality of life had increased or stayed the same over the past 3 years (76% versus 52% of respondents that felt it had worsened); • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (82% versus 61% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); • Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (77% versus 55% of those that disagree); and • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (77% versus 54% of those that were dissatisfied).

significant decrease in the proportion of respondents that were “somewhat” or “very satisfied” (73% versus 85% in 2010). Figure 7

Satisfaction with Garbage Collection Services 40%

47% 39% 41% 38% 45%

Very satisfied

33%

38% 39% 35% 35% 33%

Somewhat satisfied

11%

Neutral 4% 4%

Somewhat dissatisfied

7% 9% 8% 11%

8% 9% 10% 10% 13%

5%

2% 4% 6% 6% 5%

Very dissatisfied

0%

20%

2012 (n=800) 2008 (n=800)

40% 2010 (n=800) 2007 (n=800)

60%

80%

100%

Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=105) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with garbage collection services included: • Would prefer that garbage be picked up twice a week or more frequently (53%); and • The service is too expensive (15%).

2009 (n=800) 2006 (n=800)

*3% of respondents indicated “Don’t Know”.

11


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Regarding recycling and composting depots, there was a significant increase in respondents who indicated they were very satisfied (49% compared to 43%

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

in 2010). Thirty-two percent (32%) were somewhat satisfied. In contrast, only

Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with recycling and composting depots included: • Respondents that felt their quality of life had improved over the past 3 years (83% versus 66% of respondents that felt it had worsened); and • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (82% versus 72% of those that were dissatisfied).

5% of respondents were dissatisfied overall with recycling and composting depots. See Figure 8, below. Figure 8

Satisfaction with Recycling and Composting Depots 43%

28% 33% 37%

Very satisfied

49% 55%

32%38%

37% 35% 33% 29%

Somewhat satisfied 10%

9%

12% 7% 10% 5%

Neutral

4% 6%

Somewhat dissatisfied

8%

15% 17% 14%

2%

2%

8% 8% 6% 3%

Very dissatisfied

0% 2012 (n=800) 2008 (n=800)

20%

40%

2010 (n=800) 2007 (n=800)

60%

80%

100%

Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=42) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with recycling and composting depots included: • Need to extend hours / remain open for 24 hours, 7 days a week (33%); • Unable to take all items there (e.g. plastics) / more variety of materials that can be recycled (12%); • Dissatisfaction with location of site / moved out of town / have to drive (8%); and • It is not free / they are charged too much (8%).

2009 (n=800) 2006 (n=800)

*4% of respondents indicated “Don’t Know”.

12


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Respondents that reside in a single family dwelling (n=691) were asked about their Blue Bag Curbside Recycling Program. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of respondents indicated they were satisfied overall with the service, while 6% were dissatisfied. Six percent (6%) were neutral in this regard. Compared to 2012, the percentage of respondents that indicated they were “very” or “somewhat satisfied” was significantly higher (88% versus 83% in 2010). See Figure 9, below. Figure 9

Satisfaction with Blue Bag Curbside Recycling* 58% 54%

Very satisfied

29% 29%

Somewhat satisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

4% 5% 3% 3%

Very dissatisfied

0%

Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with Blue Bag Curbside Recycling included: • Respondents that felt their quality of life had improved or stayed the same over the past 3 years (91% versus 70% of respondents that felt it had worsened); • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (92% versus 81% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); • Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that Council effectively plans for the future (91% versus 74% of those that disagree); and • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (92% versus 66% of those that were dissatisfied). Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=53) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with curbside recycling included: • Dissatisfaction with the cost of the service (21%); • Limitations on what can be recycled (18%); and • Service is not available to everyone / condos do not receive this service (12%).

6% 9%

Neutral

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

20% 2012 (n=691)

40%

60%

80%

100%

2010 (n=649)

*This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of satisfaction. It includes respondents that live in a house, but excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know”.

Usage of Blue Bag Service Respondents were asked whether or not they used the blue bag service. Responses included: • 90% of respondents stated yes; • 10% of respondents stated no; and •

<1% of respondents did not know. 13


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

New in 2012, respondents rated their level of satisfaction with the new curbside organics service. Three-quarters of respondents (75%) were somewhat satisfied (30%) or very satisfied (46%) with the service. See Figure 10, below. Figure 10

Satisfaction with New Curbside Organics Service* Very satisfied

46%

Somewhat satisfied

30%

Neutral

13%

Somewhat dissatisfied

7%

Very dissatisfied

5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 (n=735)

*This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of satisfaction. It excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know”. *New question in 2012

Usage of Curbside Organics Service Respondents were asked whether or not they used the curbside organics service. Responses included: • 84% of respondents stated yes; • 16% of respondents stated no; and • <1% of respondents did not know.

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with the new curbside organics service included: • Respondents in South East St. Albert (80% versus 67% of respondents in South West St. Albert); • Respondents that felt their quality of life had improved or stayed the same over the past 3 years (79% versus 49% of respondents that felt it had worsened); • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (84% versus 62% or respondents that felt they received fair or poor value); • Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (80% versus 57% of those that disagree); • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (81% versus 45% of those that were dissatisfied); • Respondents age 18 to 34 (88% versus 71% of those aged 65 or older); and • Respondents that have lived in St. Albert for 10 years or less (86% versus 73% of those that have lived in St. Albert for more than 10 years). Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=87) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with the curbside organics service included: • The service is expensive (14%); • Do not use the service / do not use often enough (11%); • Bins are left in front yards / does not look good (9%); and • The service is not available at condos (8%). 14


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Respondents were generally satisfied (77%) with sanitary sewer services, with 46% being somewhat satisfied and 31% being very satisfied. Re-wording of this

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

question for the 2012 survey made this a new question for 2012 respondents

Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with sanitary sewer services included:

and therefore not eligible for comparison to previous years. See Figure 11, below. Figure 11

Satisfaction with Sanitary Sewer Services* • Very satisfied

31%

Somewhat satisfied

46%

Neutral

18%

• Somewhat dissatisfied

4%

Very dissatisfied

2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 (n=736)

*This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of satisfaction. It excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know”. *This question was modified in 2012; therefore, results cannot be compared with previous surveys

Respondents in South East St. Albert (80% versus 71% of respondents in South West St. Albert); Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (82% versus 70% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (79% versus 68% of those that disagree); Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (80% versus 61% of those that were dissatisfied); and Respondents age 18 to 34 (93% versus 73% to 77% of those age 35 to 64).

Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=38) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with sanitary sewer services included: • The service is too costly (50%); • Replacements and repairs are not done timely enough (10%); • Charges should fluctuate based on seasons (7%); and • Poor planning of initial installation / poor utility planning / planned to benefit builders (5%).

15


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Nearly two-thirds (64%) of respondents indicated some level of satisfaction with

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

land drainage services, with 46% being ‘somewhat satisfied’ and 18% being

Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with land drainage services included: • Respondents in North West and South East St. Albert (67% to 68% versus 54% of respondents in North East St. Albert); • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (68% versus 57% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); • Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (67% versus 51% of those that disagree); • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (67% versus 46% of those that were dissatisfied); and • Respondents age 18 to 34 (90% versus 55% to 69% of those aged 35 and older).

‘very satisfied’. In contrast, 7% indicated they were somewhat dissatisfied (5%) or very dissatisfied (2%). See Figure 12, below. Figure 12

Satisfaction with Land Drainage Services* Very satisfied

18%

Somewhat satisfied

46%

Neutral

30%

Somewhat dissatisfied

5%

Very dissatisfied

2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 (n=616)

*This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of satisfaction. It excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know”. *New question in 2012

Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=40) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with land drainage services included: • Flooding in some areas / flooded basement (16%); • Poor drainage (11%); • Ineffective storm sewer / lack of a storm sewer (11%); and • Lack of information provided about how the system works / available services / problems with drainage (10%).

16


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

3.3.3 Protective Services The majority of respondents (86%) were satisfied with emergency medical and fire services, with 40% being somewhat satisfied and 46% being very satisfied. Compared to 2010, respondents were significantly less likely to be ‘very satisfied’ (10% decrease) with these services. See Figure 13, below. Figure 13

Satisfaction with Emergency Medical & Fire Services* 46%

56% 50% 57% 53%

Very satisfied

68%

40%

Somewhat satisfied 25%

37% 39% 32% 36%

10%

6% 9% 8% 9% <1%

Neutral Somewhat dissatisfied

4%

1% 2% 2% <1% <1%

<1%

Very dissatisfied

<1% <1% 1% <1% 1%

0% 2012 (n=759) 2008 (n=741)

20%

40% 2010 (n=748) 2007 (n=744)

60%

80%

100%

2009 (n=758) 2006 (n=732)

*This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of satisfaction. It excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know”.

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with emergency medical and fire services included: • Respondents that felt their quality of life had improved or stayed the same over the past 3 years (88% versus 72% of respondents that felt it had worsened); • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (89% versus 82% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); • Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (87% versus 80% of those that disagree); • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (88% versus 75% of those that were dissatisfied); and • Respondents age 65 or older (89% versus 83% of those age 35 to 54). Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=30) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with emergency medical and fire services included: • Hospital waiting time is too long (31%); • There are long wait times for ambulances (30%); • There are not enough ambulances (14%); and • The service is expensive (6%).

17


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

As illustrated in Figure 14, below, respondents were generally satisfied (83%) with RCMP services in St. Albert, 45% being somewhat satisfied and 38%

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

being very satisfied. Compared to 2010, there was a 5% decrease those

Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with RCMP Police services included: • Respondents that felt their quality of life had improved or stayed the same over the past 3 years (87% versus 60% of respondents that felt it had worsened); • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (89% versus 75% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); • Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (86% versus 70% of those that disagree); and • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (87% versus 64% of those that were dissatisfied).

respondents providing a ‘very satisfied’ rating, however overall satisfaction remained comparable to the previous survey year. Figure 14

Satisfaction with RCMP Police Services* 38%

43% 41% 44% 40%

Very satisfied

54%

45%

Somewhat satisfied 33%

41% 43% 40% 40%

11%

11% 11% 7% 10% 6%

Neutral

5%

4% 4% 7% 6% 5%

Somewhat dissatisfied

1%

1% 1% 2% 4% 2%

Very dissatisfied

0% 2012 (n=782) 2008 (n=777)

20%

40% 2010 (n=774) 2007 (n=778)

60%

80%

100%

2009 (n=783) 2006 (n=778)

*This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of satisfaction. It excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know”.

Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=46) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with RCMP Police services included: • Needs to better prioritize their activities (17%); • There is not enough community policing / RCMP is reactive (11%); • Not enough policing / extend hours (9%); • Slow response times (9%); • Lack of RCMP visibility (8%); and • Needs improved youth ourtreach (8%).

18


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Sixty percent (60%) of respondents indicated some level of satisfaction with animal control enforcement, with 38% being somewhat satisfied and 23% being very satisfied. In contrast, 14% of respondents indicated they were somewhat dissatisfied (10%) or very dissatisfied (4%). See Figure 15, below. Figure 14

Satisfaction with Animal Control Enforcement* Very satisfied

23%

Somewhat satisfied

38%

Neutral

26%

Somewhat dissatisfied

10%

Very dissatisfied

4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with animal control enforcement included: • Female respondents (65% versus 56% of male respondents); • Respondents that felt their quality of life had improved or stayed the same over the past 3 years (62% versus 50% of respondents that felt it had worsened); • Respondents that had not been in contact with a City employee (68% versus 57% of respondents that had); • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (65% versus 53% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); • Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (63% versus 51% of those that disagree); and • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (62% versus 52% of those that were dissatisfied).

100%

2012 (n=710)

*This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of satisfaction. It excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know”. *New question in 2012

Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=97) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with animal control enforcement included: • Lack of enforcement for dog leashes / fence off leash area / dog bylaws / stray dogs (37%); • No cat bylaw / cat problem / stray cats (24%); • Lack of enforcement for pet waste (17%); and • Lack of noise bylaw enforcement concerning animals (11%). 19


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Approximately three in five respondents (59%) were generally satisfied with community standards enforcement, with 41% being somewhat satisfied and 18% being very satisfied.

In contrast, 12% of respondents were somewhat

dissatisfied (10%) or very dissatisfied (3%). See Figure 16, below. Figure 15

Satisfaction with Community Standards Enforcement* Very satisfied

18%

Somewhat satisfied

41%

Neutral

29%

Somewhat dissatisfied

10%

Very dissatisfied

3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with community standards enforcement included: • Female respondents (64% versus 54% of male respondents); • Respondents that felt their quality of life had improved or stayed the same over the past 3 years (61% versus 42% of respondents that felt it had worsened); • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (67% versus 47% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); • Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (63% versus 43% of those that disagree); • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (62% versus 41% of those that were dissatisfied); • Respondents age 18 to 34 (78% versus 56% to 61% of those age 35 and older); and • Respondents that have lived in the City for 10 years or less (68% versus 57% of those that have lived in the City for more than 10 years).

2012 (n=721) *This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of satisfaction. It excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know”. *This question was modified in 2012; therefore, results cannot be compared with previous surveys.

Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=89) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with community standards enforcement included: • Lack of yard / property enforcement / abandoned houses (41%); and • Needs more enforcement in general (15%).

20


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Nearly two thirds (64%) of respondents were generally satisfied with traffic

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

safety and parking enforcement. Nearly half (46%) were somewhat satisfied and

Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with traffic safety and parking enforcement included: • Female respondents (69% versus 58% of male respondents); • Respondents that felt their quality of life had improved or stayed the same over the past 3 years (67% versus 45% of respondents that felt it had worsened); • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (73% versus 51% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); • Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (67% versus 50% of those that disagree); and • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (68% versus 42% of those that were dissatisfied).

17% were very satisfied. In contrast, 11% stated they were either somewhat dissatisfied (8%) or very dissatisfied (3%). This question was new in the 2012 survey. See Figure 17, below. Figure 167

Satisfaction with Traffic Safety and Parking Enforcement* Very satisfied

17%

Somewhat satisfied

46%

Neutral

26%

Somewhat dissatisfied

8%

Very dissatisfied

3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 (n=765) *This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of satisfaction. It excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know”. *New question in 2012

Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=82) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with traffic safety and parking enforcement included: • Dissatisfied with parking enforcement / parking tickets / parking too much of a priority (31%); • Too much photo radar / speed traps / red light cameras / just an attempt to get more money (19%); and • Timing of the traffic lights / flow of traffic should be improved (10%).

21


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

3.3.4 Road Maintenance Services Regarding winter road maintenance services, nearly three-quarters (74%) of respondents were satisfied to some degree with services provided in the winter. Overall satisfaction levels increased significantly compared to 2010, with a significant 7% increase in respondents that were ‘very satisfied’ (33% versus 26% in 2010). See Figure 18, below. Figure 178

Satisfaction with Winter Road Maintenance (including snow removal and ice management)* 33%

26% 29%35% 32% 39%

Very satisfied

41%

42% 40% 41% 42% 39%

Somewhat satisfied

13%

17% 12% 7% 9% 5%

Neutral

9%

11% 13% 12% 11% 12%

Somewhat dissatisfied

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with winter road maintenance included: • Respondents that felt their quality of life had improved or stayed the same over the past 3 years (77% versus 53% of respondents that felt it had worsened); • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (81% versus 65% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); • Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (76% versus 66% of those that disagree); • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (77% versus 59% of those that were dissatisfied); and • Respondents age 65 or older (80% versus 67% of those aged 55 to 64).

4%

4% 6% 5% 6% 5%

Very dissatisfied

0% 2012 (n=800) 2008 (n=800)

20%

40%

2010 (n=800) 2007 (n=800)

*1% of respondents in 2012 stated ‘Don’t know’.

60% 2009 (n=800) 2006 (n=800)

80%

100%

Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=103) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with winter road maintenance included: • Service is too infrequent (14%); • Service is not timely enough (14%); • Lack of snow removal in residential areas (13%); and • Does not plow the cul-de-sacs / crescents (10%).

22


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

As shown in Figure 19, more than two-thirds (69%) of respondents were satisfied with summer road maintenance to some degree, with 46% being somewhat satisfied and 22% being very satisfied. Responses remained consistent with those from 2010. Figure 189

Satisfaction with Summer Road Maintenance (including paving, pothole repair and sidewalk maintenance)* 22%

19% 12% 22% 14%

Very satisfied

30%

46%

49% 53% 49% 45% 50%

Somewhat satisfied 20%

Neutral 6%

21% 19% 14% 17%

9%

8% 12% 11% 16% 11%

Somewhat dissatisfied 3%

3% 4% 4% 8% 3%

Very dissatisfied

0%

20%

2012 (n=800) 2008 (n=800) *<1% of respondents in 2012 stated ‘Don’t know’.

40% 2010 (n=800) 2007 (n=800)

60%

80%

100%

2009 (n=800) 2006 (n=800)

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with summer road maintenance included: • Respondents that felt their quality of life had improved or stayed the same over the past 3 years (71% versus 50% of respondents that felt it had worsened); • Respondents in South East or North West St. Albert (72% to 74% versus 61% of respondents in South West St. Albert); • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (76% versus 58% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); • Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (72% versus 56% of those that disagree); and • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (72% versus 49% of those that were dissatisfied). Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=91) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with summer road maintenance included: • Potholes not being repaired / repaired poorly (31%); • Sidewalks in need of repair (24%); • Repairs and maintenance are not done timely enough (17%); and • Older roads have poor maintenance / only some areas get repaired (11%).

23


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

3.3.5 Public Transit Services When asked to rate their level of satisfaction regarding St. Albert Public

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

Transit over half (55%) of respondents were satisfied to some extent, with

Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with St. Albert Public Transit included: • Respondents in South West St. Albert (63% versus 49% of respondents in North West St. Albert); • Respondents that felt their quality of life had improved or stayed the same in the past 3 years (58% versus 28% of respondents that felt it had worsened); • Respondents that had not been in contact with a City employee (61% versus 52% of respondents that had); • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (61% versus 43% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); • Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (59% versus 36% of those that disagree); and • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (57% versus 39% of those that were dissatisfied).

20% of respondents being very satisfied and 35% being somewhat satisfied. Overall satisfaction ratings for 2012 remained comparable to previous survey years. See Figure 20, below. Figure 19

Satisfaction with St. Albert Public Transit* 20%

18%

18% 15% 15% 21%

Very satisfied

35% 36%

32% 36% 35% 38%

Somewhat satisfied

31%

30%

Neutral 21%

31% 28% 32%

10% 11%

15% 16% 13% 14%

Somewhat dissatisfied

4% 6%

4% 5% 5% 6%

Very dissatisfied

0% 2012 (n=579) 2008 (n=578)

20%

40% 2010 (n=579) 2007 (n=600)

60%

80%

100%

2009 (n=605) 2006 (n=579)

*This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of satisfaction. It excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know”.

Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=81) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with St. Albert Public Transit included: • Service is infrequent (16%); • It takes too much time to get anywhere (15%); • Poor weekend and holiday service (13%); and • Not enough service into Edmonton (12%).

24


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

3.3.6 Planning and Development

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

Overall satisfaction levels regarding land use planning and approvals were 37%, with 31% of respondents being somewhat satisfied and 7% being very satisfied. Overall satisfaction ratings for 2012 remained comparable to previous survey years. See Figure 21, below. Figure 201

Satisfaction with Land Use Planning and Approvals* 7%

7% 6% 8% 6%

Very satisfied

12%

31% 34%

39% 36% 33% 43%

Somewhat satisfied

42%

Neutral 23%

37% 34% 31% 36%

13% 16%

15% 19% 16% 16%

Somewhat dissatisfied 7%

6% 6% 6% 9% 6%

Very dissatisfied

0% 2012 (n=654) 2008 (n=680)

20%

40% 2010 (n=631) 2007 (n=714)

60%

80%

100%

2009 (n=681) 2006 (n=690)

*This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of satisfaction. It excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know”.

Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with land use planning and approvals included: • Respondents that felt their quality of life had improved or stayed the same in the past 3 years (40% versus 19% of respondents that felt it had worsened); • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (44% versus 27% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); • Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (41% versus 22% of those that disagree); • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (41% versus 20% of those that were dissatisfied); and • Respondents age 18 to 34 (56% versus 32% to 38% of those age 35 to 64).

Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=135) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with land use planning and approvals included: • Need to attract more business / industry / lack of development (14%); • Displeased with planning in general (10%); and • Lack of future planning / foresight / inconsistency (10%).

25


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Regarding satisfaction with building permits, 13% of respondents indicated they were “very satisfied”, and 30% indicated they were “somewhat satisfied”. Results remained comparable to those in 2010. See Figure 22, below. Figure 212

Satisfaction with Building Permits* 13%

12% 9% 10% 9%

Very satisfied

18%

30% 35%

35% 35% 34% 38%

Somewhat satisfied

49%

Neutral

38% 33%

Somewhat dissatisfied

9% 9%

45%

13%

3%

Very dissatisfied

1% 2% 4% 3% 2%

0% 2012 (n=517) 2008 (n=581)

20%

Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with building and development permits included: • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (48% versus 36% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); • Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (46% versus 29% of those that disagree); and • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (45% versus 27% of those that were dissatisfied).

48% 48%

6%

4% 6%

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

40% 2010 (n=474) 2007 (n=615)

60%

80%

100%

2009 (n=553) 2006 (n=589)

*This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of satisfaction. It excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know”.

Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=47) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with building and development permits included: • Too many restrictions / too much red tape / too picky / hard to get approval (19%); • Long waiting times for permits / inefficient waiting times (12); • Unhelpful to developers / not developer friendly (12%); and • Improper zoning / changes to zoning (7%).

26


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

3.3.7 Economic Development Respondents were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with attracting and supporting local businesses in St. Albert. Forty-two percent (42%) of respondents stated they were somewhat satisfied (32%) or very satisfied (10%) In contrast, 26% were either somewhat (18%) or very (8%) dissatisfied. Due to modifications made in 2012, this question is no longer comparable to previous survey years. See Figure 23, below. Figure 223

Satisfaction with Attracting and Supporting Local Businesses* Very satisfied

10%

Somewhat satisfied

32%

Neutral

32%

Somewhat dissatisfied

Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with attracting and supporting local businesses included: • Female respondents (51% versus 32% of male respondents); • Those that felt their quality of life had improved or stayed the same in the past 3 years (44% versus 27% of respondents that felt it had worsened); • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (48% versus 31% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); • Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (45% versus 27% of those that disagree); • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (46% versus 18% of those that were dissatisfied); • Respondents age 18 to 34 (60% versus 40% each of those age 35 to 64); and • Respondents that rent their home (61% versus 41% of those that own their home).

18%

Very dissatisfied

8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 (n=753)

*This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of satisfaction. It excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know”. *Question was modified in 2012; therefore, results cannot be compared to previous surveys.

Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=198) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with attracting and supporting local businesses in St. Albert included: • City could attract more businesses / not encouraging enough new businesses (34%); • City does not promote business well enough / no incentives or stimulus / not business friendly / not flexible (15%); and • Increase commercial tax base / improper tax allocation / increase industrial tax base (10%).

27


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

3.3.8 Cultural Services and Library New in 2012, respondents were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with cultural services. Three-quarters (75%) of respondents indicated some level of

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

satisfaction, with 35% of respondents feeling ‘very satisfied’, and 40% feeling

Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with cultural services included:

‘somewhat satisfied’. See Figure 24, below.

Figure 234

• •

Satisfaction with Cultural Services* Very satisfied

35%

Somewhat satisfied

40%

• Neutral

22%

• Somewhat dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

3%

1%

0%

• 20%

40%

60%

80%

Respondents in South West St. Albert (80% versus 70% of those in North West St. Albert); Female respondents (81% versus 69% of male respondents); Respondents that felt their quality of life had improved or stayed the same in the past 3 years (77% versus 61% of respondents that felt it had worsened); Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (83% versus 63% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (79% versus 55% of those that disagree); Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (79% versus 52% of those that were dissatisfied); and Respondents age 65 or older (82% versus 71% to 73% of those aged 35 to 64).

100%

2012 (n=739)

*This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of satisfaction. It excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know”. *New question in 2012

Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=24) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with cultural services included: • Unfamiliar with services available (n=5); • Lack of programs / services (n=3); and • Lack of cultural identity (n=3).

28


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

For the first time, respondents were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with the St. Albert Public Library services. Nearly half (49%) of respondents were “very

satisfied”, and 36% were “somewhat satisfied”. See Figure 25, below. Figure 245

Satisfaction with the St. Albert Public Library Services* Very Satisfied

49%

Somewhat Satisfied

36%

Neutral

13%

Somewhat Dissatisfied

Very Dissatisfied

2%

0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 (n=725)

*This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of satisfaction. It excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know”. *New in 2012.

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with St. Albert Public Library services included: • Respondents in South West St. Albert (91% versus 82% of respondents in South East St. Albert); • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (88% versus 80% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); • Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (87% versus 74% of those that disagree); • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (86% versus 77% of those that were dissatisfied); and • Respondents age 65 or older (90% versus 81% of those aged 35 to 54).

Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=19) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with St. Albert Public Library services included: • High fees (n=6); • Expand the facility / too small (n=6); • Needs an updated system (e.g. digital) (n=4); and • Lack of selection / there are no new books / outdated books (n=4).

29


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

3.4

Final Report

Satisfaction with St. Albert Operated Facilities

New in 2012, respondents were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with the Art Gallery of St. Albert. Sixty-one percent (61%) of respondents indicated some level of satisfaction, with 23% being “very satisfied” and 39% being “somewhat satisfied”. See Figure 26, below. Figure 26

Satisfaction with the Art Gallery of St. Albert* Very Satisfied

23%

Somewhat Satisfied

39%

Neutral

33%

Somewhat Dissatisfied

4%

Very Dissatisfied

2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 (n=624)

*This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of satisfaction. It excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know”. *New question in 2012

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with the Art Gallery of St. Albert included: • Female respondents (73% versus 51% of male respondents); • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (65% versus 55% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); • Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (66% versus 41% of those that disagree); and • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (67% versus 34% of those that were dissatisfied).

Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=37) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with Art Gallery included: • The facility is too small (19%); • It should not be publicly funded / excessively funded (13%); • Dissatisfied with the expansion plans (13%); • Money would be better spent elsewhere (11%); and • Not enough art on display (10%).

30


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Also new in 2012, respondents were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with art in public places. Over two-thirds (69%) of respondents indicated some level of satisfaction. Nearly half (44%) of respondents were “somewhat satisfied” and onequarter (25%) were “very satisfied”. See Figure 27, below. Figure 27

Satisfaction with Art in Public Places* Very Satisfied

25%

Somewhat Satisfied

44%

Neutral

25%

Somewhat Dissatisfied

Very Dissatisfied

5%

1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 (n=722) *This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of satisfaction. It excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know”. *New in 2012.

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with art in public places included: • Female respondents (76% versus 63% of male respondents); • Respondents that felt their quality of life had improved or stayed the same in the past 3 years (71% versus 55% of respondents that felt it had worsened); • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (75% versus 60% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); • Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (73% versus 51% of those that disagree); • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (73% versus 45% of those that were dissatisfied); and • Respondents age 55 and older (73% versus 61% of those aged 35 to 54). Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=44) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with art in public places included: • Money would be better spent elsewhere (23%); • Too expensive to maintain (19%); • Damage / easy target for vandalism (14%); and • Not enough art on display (11%).

31


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

New in 2012, respondents were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with the visual art studios. Nearly two-thirds (63%) of respondents were either very or somewhat satisfied, with 24% being “very satisfied” and 39% being “somewhat satisfied”. See Figure 28, below. Figure 28

Satisfaction with the Visual Arts Studios (pottery and painting studios, locations for adult and children’s art classes)* Very Satisfied

24%

Somewhat Satisfied

39%

Neutral

34%

Somewhat Dissatisfied

2%

Very Dissatisfied

1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 (n=590)

*This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of satisfaction. It excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know”. *New question in 2012.

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with the visual arts studios included: • Respondents in South East or South West St. Albert (68% to 69% versus 56% of respondents in North West St. Albert); • Female respondents (75% versus 50% of male respondents); • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (73% versus 47% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); • Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (67% versus 43% of those that disagree); and • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (68% versus 37% of those that were dissatisfied). Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=18) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with visual art studios included: • Facilities should have their own building, not City Hall (n=5); • Too expensive to maintain (n=4); and • Lack of services / programs / more funding is needed (n=3).

32


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Respondents were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with the Arden Theatre. As illustrated in Figure 29, the majority (92%) of respondents were satisfied to some extent with the theatre, with 40% being somewhat satisfied and 52% being very satisfied. Figure 29

Satisfaction with The Arden Theatre 52%

55%

Very Satisfied

52%

40%

35%

Somewhat Satisfied

38%

8% 9%

1%

1%

1%

<1%

Very Dissatisfied

Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with the Arden Theatre included: • Female respondents (96% versus 88% of male respondents); • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (96% versus 85% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (94% versus 81% of those that were dissatisfied); and • Respondents age 65 and older (96% each versus 88% to 91% of those aged 35 to 64).

9%

Neutral

Somewhat Dissatisfied

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

<1%

<1%

0%

20%

2012 (n=762)

40%

2010 (n=742)

60%

80%

100%

Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=7) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with the Arden Theatre included: • The facility is too small (n=3); and • There is not enough variety with respect to shows (n=2).

2009 (n=754)

*This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of satisfaction. It excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know”.

33


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

The majority (89%) of respondents were satisfied with the Fountain Park Recreation Centre, 41% being very satisfied and 48% being somewhat satisfied. One-tenth (10%) of respondents were neutral. See Figure 30, below. Figure 30

Satisfaction with Fountain Park Recreation Centre* 41%

45%

43% 44% 46%

Very Satisfied

63%

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with the Fountain Park Recreation Centre included: • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (92% versus 86% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); • Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (90% versus 84% of those that disagree);

48% 42%

Somewhat Satisfied 29%

45% 42% 43%

Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=8) The most frequent reason for dissatisfaction with Fountain Park Recreation Centre was that maintenance needs to be better as change rooms were dirty (n=2).

10% 12%

11% 11% 11% 7%

Neutral 1%

1%

1% 2% <1% <1%

Somewhat Dissatisfied

<1%

<1%

<1% 1% 0% 1%

Very Dissatisfied

0% 2012 (n=721) 2008 (n=711)

20%

40%

2010 (n=705) 2007 (n=722)

60%

80%

100%

2009 (n=732) 2006 (n=727)

*This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of satisfaction. It excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know”.

34


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

The majority of respondents (86%) expressed satisfaction with the St. Albert Public Library facility with 37% being somewhat satisfied and 49% being very satisfied. Responses remained consistent with those in 2010. See Figure 31, below. Figure 31

Satisfaction with the St. Albert Public Library Facility* 49% 51%

45%

Very Satisfied

54% 52%

62%

37% 38%

Somewhat Satisfied

35% 35% 29%

42%

12%

10%

11% 8% 10% 4%

Neutral

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with the St. Albert Public Library facility included: • Female respondents (89% versus 83% of male respondents); • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (92% versus 78% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (88% versus 78% of those that were dissatisfied); • Respondents age 65 and older (91% versus 82 to 84% of those aged 35 to 64); and • Respondents whose annual income was less than $50,000 (92% versus 81% of respondents whose annual income was greater than $125,000).

2%

Somewhat Dissatisfied

Very Dissatisfied

1%

2% 2% 2% 3%

1% <1%

<1% <1% 1% 2%

0% 2012 (n=738) 2008 (n=747)

20%

40% 2010 (n=740) 2007 (n=736)

60%

80%

100%

2009 (n=751) 2006 (n=756)

Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=18) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with the St. Albert Public Library facility included: • The library is too small (n=6); and • A better selection is needed (n=3).

*This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of satisfaction. It excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know”.

35


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

As illustrated in Figure 32, three-quarters (75%) of respondents were satisfied overall with the heritage sites, while 22% of respondents were neutral, and 3%

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

were dissatisfied overall. Responses were comparable to those reported in

Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with heritage sites included: • Respondents in South West St. Albert (83% versus 71% of respondents in North West St. Albert); • Female respondents (80% versus 71% of male respondents); • Respondents that felt their quality of life had improved or stayed the same in the past 3 years (77% versus 67% of respondents that felt it had worsened); • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (81% versus 67% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); • Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (80% versus 56% of those that disagree); and • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (78% versus 58% of those that were dissatisfied).

2010. Figure 32

Satisfaction with the Heritage Sites* (including the Musée Héritage Museum, Little White School and Grain Elevator Park) 33%

29% 27% 32% 26% 36%

Very Satisfied

42%

42% 45% 43% 45% 38%

Somewhat Satisfied 22%

24% 25% 20% 23% 17%

Neutral 2%

3% 3% 4% 3% 6%

Somewhat Dissatisfied

1%

Very Dissatisfied

2% 1% 1% 1% 1%

0% 2012 (n=728) 2008 (n=702)

20%

40% 2010 (n=712) 2007 (n=688)

60%

80%

100%

2009 (n=694) 2006 (n=687)

*This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of satisfaction. It excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know”.

Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=21) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with heritage sites included: • Costs too much / poor usage of funds (n=10); and • Dislikes the train station (n=3); • Lack of interest / not community related (n=2); and • Lack of promotion / more public awareness needed (n=2).

36


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Close to two-thirds (65%) of respondents were satisfied with the Akinsdale or Kinex Arena. Overall satisfaction ratings remained similar to those reported in 2010; however there was a significant increase in the percentage of respondents that were “very satisfied” (22% versus 17% in 2010). See Figure 33, below. Figure 33

Satisfaction with Akinsdale or Kinex Arena* 22%

17% 18% 24% 25%

Very Satisfied

32%

42%

47% 44% 41% 43% 36%

Somewhat Satisfied

33% 34% 29% 28% 24%

2%

3% 3% 2% 3% 5%

Somewhat Dissatisfied

<1%

Very Dissatisfied

Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with the Akinsdale or Kinex Arena included: • Female respondents (69% versus 61% of male respondents); • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (70% versus 57% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); and • Respondents age 65 and older (71% each versus 61% of those age 35 to 54). Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=11) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with the Akinsdale or Kinex Arena included: • Outdated and in need of upgrading (n=5); • The facility is too small (n=3); and • Poor maintenance (n=2).

34%

Neutral

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

<1% 1% 4% 1% 3%

0% 2012 (n=639) 2008 (n=605)

20%

40% 2010 (n=571) 2007 (n=646)

60%

80%

100%

2009 (n=646) 2006 (n=640)

*This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of satisfaction. It excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know”.

37


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

As illustrated in Figure 34, 71% of respondents were satisfied to some degree with outdoor rinks in St. Albert, with 25% being very satisfied and 47% being

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

somewhat satisfied. One-quarter (25%) of respondents were neither satisfied nor

Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with outdoor rinks included: • Respondents that felt their quality of life had improved or stayed the same in the past 3 years (73% versus 57% of respondents that felt it had worsened); • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (73% versus 60% of those that were dissatisfied); and • Respondents age 18 to 34 (86% versus 68% to 69% of those age 55 and older).

dissatisfied and 4% were dissatisfied overall. Overall satisfaction ratings were comparable to 2010. Figure 34

Satisfaction with Outdoor Rinks* 25% 26%

23% 27% 25% 32%

Very Satisfied

47%

43%

42% 41% 40% 39%

Somewhat Satisfied 25% 25%

27% 23% 28% 22%

Neutral 3%

5%

6% 6% 5% 6%

Somewhat Dissatisfied

1%

1%

2% 3% 2% 1%

Very Dissatisfied

0% 2012 (n=651) 2008 (n=619)

20%

40%

2010 (n=628) 2007 (n=646)

60%

80%

100%

2009 (n=676) 2006 (n=622)

*This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of satisfaction. It excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know”.

Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=28) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with outdoor rinks included: • Poorly maintained / need repairs (n=6); • Lack of shacks to warm up in / shacks are not open (n=6); • Lack of change rooms / leave them open / need bigger change rooms (n=6); • Not enough staff available / poor service / not supervised (n=3); • Do not have one in all communities / ours was closed (n=3); and • Facilities underutilized (n=2).

38


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

When asked to rate their level of satisfaction with Grosvenor Outdoor Pool, over

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

two-thirds (67%) of respondents provided some level of satisfaction. While

Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with Grosvenor Outdoor Pool included: • Respondents in South West St. Albert (79% versus 61% to 66% of respondents in North East, North West, and South East St. Albert); • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (72% versus 60% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); • Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (70% versus 57% of those that disagree); and • Respondents age 65 and older (74% versus 61% of those aged 55 to 64).

overall satisfaction remained comparable to 2010, there was a significant decrease in the percent of respondents that were “very satisfied” (21% versus 26% in 2010). See Figure 35, below. Figure 35

Satisfaction with the Grosvenor Outdoor Pool* 21%

26%

20% 28% 23% 27%

Very Satisfied

46%

42%

45% 39% 36% 38%

Somewhat Satisfied

32%

30%

32% 29% 37% 28%

Neutral

Somewhat Dissatisfied

Very Dissatisfied

1% 2%

3% 3% 3% 4%

<1% <1% <1%

1% 1% 3%

0% 2012 (n=620) 2008 (n=602)

20%

40% 2010 (n=597) 2007 (n=592)

60%

80%

100%

2009 (n=617) 2006 (n=590)

*This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of satisfaction. It excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know”.

Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=6) Reasons for dissatisfaction with the Grosvenor Outdoor Pool were: • Dissatisfied with amount of time taken for renovations (n=1); • Need a wading pool (n=1); • Needs grass / picnic area / dislikes concrete pad (n=1); • Need a new outdoor pool (n=1); • It is a porr use of space (n=1); and • Requires more security (n=1).

39


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

As shown in Figure 36, 86% of respondents expressed some level of satisfaction with the Woodlands Water Play Park. Compared to 2010, there was a significant increase of 6% in the overall satisfaction of respondents (86% versus 81% in 2010). Nearly half (49%) of respondents were “very satisfied” (8% increase from 2010), and 38% were “somewhat satisfied” (comparable to 2010). Figure 36

Satisfaction with the Woodlands Water Play Park*

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with the Woodlands Water Play Park included: • Female respondents (89% versus 84% of male respondents); and • Respondents that have been in contact with a City employee (88% versus 83% of respondents that had not); and • Respondents whose annual income was less than $125,000 (90% versus 79% of respondents whose annual income was less than $50,000).

49%

41% 40% 42% 34% 47%

Very Satisfied

Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=6) The most frequent reason for dissatisfaction with Woodlands Water Play Park was that the facility is too geared towards younger children with not enough to offer older children (n=2).

38%

40% 39% 38% 36% 32%

Somewhat Satisfied 13%

17% 18% 16% 20% 14%

Neutral 1%

2% 2% 3% 6% 4%

Somewhat Dissatisfied

<1%

Very Dissatisfied

<1% 1% 1% 4% 2%

0% 2012 (n=698) 2008 (n=678)

20%

40%

2010 (n=663) 2007 (n=669)

60%

80%

100%

2009 (n=706) 2006 (n=692)

*This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of satisfaction. It excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know”.

40


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

When asked to indicate their satisfaction with Servus Credit Union Place, also known as Servus Place or the Multipurpose Recreation Centre, over two thirds (69%) of respondents were satisfied overall, with 36% being somewhat satisfied and 33% being very satisfied. Overall satisfaction was comparable to 2010. See Figure 37, below. Figure 37

Satisfaction with Servus Credit Union Place (also known as Servus Place or the Multipurpose Recreation Center)* 33%

Very Satisfied

31% 26% 33%

16%

36%

35% 29% 24% 31%

Somewhat Satisfied 13%

15% 19% 11% 17%

Neutral

12%

11% 13% 14% 10%

Somewhat Dissatisfied

7%

8%

13% 9%

Very Dissatisfied

0% 2012 (n=755) 2008 (n=748)

35%

20%

40%

2010 (n=720) 2007 (n=677)

60%

80%

100%

2009 (n=744)

*This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of satisfaction. It excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know”.

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with Servus Credit Union Place included: • Respondents that felt their quality of life had improved or stayed the same in the past 3 years (73% versus 36% of respondents that felt it had worsened); • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (78% versus 55% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); • Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (75% versus 39% of those that disagree); • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (75% versus 36% of those that were dissatisfied); • Respondents that have lived in the City for 10 years or less (76% versus 67% of those that have lived in the City for over 10 years); and • Respondents age 18 to 34 (94% versus 58% to 75% of those aged 35 or older). Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=141) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with Servus Credit Union Place included: • Costs are too high / user fees / high membership fees (34%); • Taxes have risen to pay for the facility / taxpayers have taken on the burden (25%); and • Poor forecasting of the cost of the building / poor fiscal management / is in a deficit / expensive to build (11%).

41


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

New in 2012, respondents were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with the St. Albert Skateboard Park. Over two-thirds (69%) of respondents were satisfied to some extent, with 28% being “very satisfied” and 40% being “somewhat satisfied”. See Figure 38, below. Figure 38

Satisfaction with St. Albert Skateboard Park* Very Satisfied

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with St. Albert Skateboard Park included: • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (73% versus 63% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); • Respondents whose employment was listed as some other status (74% versus 65% of those whose employment status was working); and • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (71% versus 59% of those that were dissatisfied).

28%

Somewhat Satisfied

Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=19) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with St. Albert Skateboard Park included: • Drugs / graffiti / foul language (n=6); • Lack of supervision / security (n=5); • Attracts the wrong people / troublemakers (n=3); • The facility is too small (n=3); and • Needs renovation (n=2).

40%

Neutral

28%

Somewhat Dissatisfied

2%

Very Dissatisfied

1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 (n=598) *This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of satisfaction. It excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know”. *New question in 2012.

42


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

New in 2012, respondents were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with the Fowler Athletic Park. Seventy percent (70%) of respondents indicated some level of satisfaction, with 28% being “very satisfied” and 42% being “somewhat satisfied”. See Figure 39, below. Figure 39

Satisfaction with Fowler Athletic Park* Very Satisfied

28%

Somewhat Satisfied

42%

Neutral

Somewhat Dissatisfied

Very Dissatisfied

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with Fowler Athletic Park included: • Female respondents (76% versus 65% of male respondents); • Respondents in South East St. Albert (78% versus 62% to 67% of respondents in North East and North West St. Albert); • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (77% versus 60% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); and • Respondents age 35 to 54 and 65 and older (70% to 77% versus 60% of those age 54 to 65).

29%

1%

<1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 (n=585)

*This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of satisfaction. It excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know”. *New question in 2012

Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=7) Reasons for dissatisfaction with Fowler Athletic Park were: • Spent too much on it for the restricted uses (n=1); • Dislikes that the ramp is not being used (n=1); • Is not used much / underutilized (n=1); • Is in poor condition / needs maintenance (n=1); and • Lack of washrooms (n=1).

43


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Also new in 2012, respondents were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with the Riel Multipurpose Field. Nearly three-quarters (74%) of respondents were satisfied to some extent. Two out of five (40%) respondents were “somewhat satisfied” and 34% were “very satisfied”. See Figure 40, below. Figure 40

Satisfaction with Riel Multipurpose Field* Very Satisfied

34%

Somewhat Satisfied

40%

Neutral

22%

Somewhat Dissatisfied

Very Dissatisfied

4%

1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 (n=632)

*This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of satisfaction. It excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know”. *New question in 2012

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with Riel Multipurpose Field included: • Respondents that felt their quality of life had improved or stayed the same in the past 3 years (75% versus 62% of respondents that felt it had worsened); • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (79% versus 67% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); • Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (75% versus 65% of those that disagree); and • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (75% versus 64% of those that were dissatisfied).

Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=30) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with Riel Multipurpose Field included: • Poor use of City funds (27%); • Lack of public access / have not been allowed to use for our uses (22%); • Lacks a locker room / poor change facilities (20%); • Cost too much to build (19%); and • Poor / lack of washrooms (15%).

44


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

In 2012 respondents were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with clubhouses in St. Albert. Over half (55%) of respondents were satisfied to some extent, with 41% being “somewhat satisfied” and 15% being “very satisfied”. See Figure 41, below. Figure 41

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with clubhouses included: •

Satisfaction with Clubhouses* Very Satisfied

Somewhat Satisfied

41%

Neutral

39%

Somewhat Dissatisfied

Very Dissatisfied

15%

Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=30) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with clubhouses included: • Lack of maintenance / needs renovations (33%); • Lack of awareness / information (15%); and • They are not well utilized (14%).

5%

<1%

0%

20%

40%

Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (60% versus 50% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (57% versus 45% of those that disagree); and Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (58% versus 41% of those that were dissatisfied).

60%

80%

100%

2012 (n=549)

*This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of satisfaction. It excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know”. *New question in 2012

45


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Respondents were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with tennis courts in St. Albert. Over half (53%) of respondents indicated some level of satisfaction, with 17% being “very satisfied” and 36% being “somewhat satisfied”. This question was asked for the first time in 2012. See Figure 42, below.

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with tennis courts included: •

Figure 42

Satisfaction with Tennis Courts* Very Satisfied

17%

Somewhat Satisfied

36%

Neutral

43%

Somewhat Dissatisfied

Very Dissatisfied

Respondents in South East St. Albert (58% versus 44% of respondents in North East St. Albert); Female respondents (62% versus 45% of male respondents); Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (59% versus 46% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); Respondents whose employment was listed as some other status (60% versus 49% of those whose employment status was working); and Respondents aged 65 and older (61% versus 48% to 49% of those aged 35 to 64).

3%

1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=22) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with tennis courts included: • Courts are in need of maintenance (n=12); and • Need more tennis courts (n=7).

2012 (n=540)

*This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of satisfaction. It excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know”. *New question in 2012

46


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

3.5

Final Report

Satisfaction with St. Albert Programs

Regarding cultural programs and events, more than three-quarters (78%) of respondents were either somewhat (47%) or very (31%) satisfied, while 20% were neutral. A small percentage of (2%) were dissatisfied to some extent. See Figure 43, below. Figure 43

Satisfaction with Cultural Programs and Events* Very Satisfied

31%

Somewhat Satisfied

47%

Neutral

20%

Somewhat Dissatisfied

2%

Very Dissatisfied

<1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 (n=726)

*This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of satisfaction. It excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know”. *Question was modified in 2012; therefore, results cannot be compared to previous surveys

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with cultural programs and events included: • Female respondents (85% versus 71% of male respondents); • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (85% versus 69% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); • Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (80% versus 65% of those that disagree); • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (81% versus 59% of those that were dissatisfied); and • Respondents age 65 and older (83% versus 75% of those aged 35 to 54).

Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=20) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with cultural programs and events included: • I was not aware of the programs (n=5); • Too much money is spent on programs / events (n=3); • Need more mixing of cultures (n=3); and • The cost is too high (n=3).

47


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

The majority of respondents (80%) were satisfied with recreation programs and activities in St. Albert, 47% being somewhat satisfied and 34% being very satisfied. There was a significant increase of 4% in “neutral” ratings (18% versus 14% in 2010); otherwise responses were comparable to 2010. See Figure 44, below. Figure 44

Satisfaction with Recreational Programs and Activities 34%

35% 34% 36% 36%

Very Satisfied

45%

47%

49% 51% 45% 45% 40%

Somewhat Satisfied 18%

14% 14% 15% 16% 12%

Neutral 2%

1% 1% 3% 2% 2%

Somewhat Dissatisfied

<1% 1% <1% 1% 1% 1%

Very Dissatisfied

0% 2012 (n=733) 2008 (n=692)

20%

40% 2010 (n=701) 2007 (n=725)

60%

80%

100%

2009 (n=729) 2006 (n=707)

*This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of satisfaction. It excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know”.

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with recreational programs and activities included: • Female respondents (85% versus 76% of male respondents); • Respondents that felt their quality of life had improved or stayed the same in the past 3 years (82% versus 66% of respondents that felt it had worsened); • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (88% versus 71% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); • Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (84% versus 64% of those that disagree); • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (84% versus 58% of those that were dissatisfied); and • Respondents that have lived in the City for 10 years or less (87% versus 79% of respondents that have lived in the City for more than 10 years). Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=14) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with recreational programs and activities included: • Very few programs (n=4); • Expensive / too much of taxpayer money / not affordable (n=3); and • Programs not frequent enough / more programs/ are always full / need summer programs (n=3). 48


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

As illustrated in Figure 45, nearly two-thirds (62%) of respondents were satisfied overall with family and community support services, while over one-third (35%) of respondents were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. Four percent (4%) of respondents indicated they were dissatisfied overall with family and community support services. Responses remained comparable to those from 2010. Figure 45

Satisfaction with Family and Community Support Services* 20%

21% 21% 24% 21% 28%

Very Satisfied

42%

42% 38% 40% 41% 38%

Somewhat Satisfied

35%

34% 38% 33% 28% 34%

Neutral

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with Family and Community Support Services included: • Female respondents (66% versus 58% of male respondents); • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (68% versus 52% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); • Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (65% versus 46% of those that disagree); • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (65% versus 41% of those that were dissatisfied); and • Respondents age 65 and older (69% versus 55% of those age 35 to 54).

3%

3% 2% 2% 3% 5%

Somewhat Dissatisfied

1%

<1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Very Dissatisfied

0% 2012 (n=596) 2008 (n=580)

20%

40%

2010 (n=549) 2007 (n=614)

60%

80%

100%

2009 (n=629) 2006 (n=593)

*This figure displays the ratings of respondents who indicated their level of satisfaction. It excludes the proportion of respondents that did not provide an answer or who responded, “Don’t Know”.

Reasons for Dissatisfaction (n=22) Top reasons for dissatisfaction with family and community support services included: • Not enough programs in general (n=4); • Lack of awareness / services available (n=4); • Inadequate efforts on prevention of drug use / crime prevention (n=4); and • Staff is not qualified / trained to provide services

49


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

3.6 Overall Importance and Service Improvements

Final Report

Services in the upper left quadrant are of higher than average importance, but lower than average satisfaction, or where ratings

In conducting satisfaction and importance assessments, factors or

of overall importance are considerably greater than overall

services with the lowest levels of satisfaction ratings or lowest

satisfaction ratings. These services are viewed as primary areas

importance ratings may not necessarily be the areas where

of improvement. As shown, the following services clearly fall

improvement is most desired or needed. By mapping the following

within this quadrant: • St. Albert Public Transit; • Winter road maintenance; • Summer road maintenance; • Land use planning and approvals; • Traffic safety and parking enforcement; • Attracting and supporting local businesses; and • Family and community support services.

areas, it identifies priority areas in terms of City of St. Albert service improvements: • higher importance and lower satisfaction or areas primarily perceived as needing improvements; • higher importance and higher satisfaction or service strengths; • lower importance and higher satisfaction; and • lower importance and lower satisfaction. All respondents (regardless of contact) were questioned as to the level of importance they placed on each of the 35 City of St. Albert

Improvements to these services would do most to increase residents’ satisfaction with the overall services provided by the City of St. Albert.

services and facilities investigated (using a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 meant not at all important and 5 meant very important). Respondents’ importance and satisfaction ratings were plotted on grids whereby the axes intercepted at the average importance rating (mean=4.1) and the average satisfaction rating (mean=4.0) across all 35 services and facilities measured. Figure 46, on page 52, maps the average importance and performance ratings for each of the 35 City services measured.

50


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

City of St. Albert services which fall into the lower left quadrant are

When assessing the City services investigated, the following

considered of lower than average importance and lower than average

twelve areas were calculated as key strengths or successes. In

performance. Services include: • Building permits; • Akinsdale or Kinex Arena; • Outdoor rinks; • Grosvenor Outdoor Pool; • Animal control enforcement; • Art Gallery of St. Albert; • Art in Public Places; • Visual Art Studios; • Community standards enforcement; and • Servus Credit Union Place.

other words, services in which respondents reported that they

While, at this time, satisfaction with these services is lower, they are also not considered as important as other services investigated and consequently should be considered as secondary areas of improvement.

were of higher than average importance and higher than average satisfaction include: • Parks and trail system; • Recycling and composting depots; • Blue bag curbside recycling service; • Sanitary sewer services; • Garbage collection services; • RCMP Police Services; • Emergency medical and fire Services; • Recreational programs and activities; • Recreational services; • The Arden Theatre; • Fountain Park Recreation Centre; • St. Albert Public Library facility; and • St. Albert Public Library programs and services.

City services which fall into the lower right quadrant are currently viewed as lower than average importance and as higher than average

Maintaining a high level of satisfaction with these services is

performance. In other words, while respondents are generally satisfied

important, as these areas are viewed as highly important or

with these services, the importance placed on the services is lower in

critical to citizens. It will be important to monitor the satisfaction of

comparison to other City services evaluated. As shown, the following

these services to ensure that resident satisfaction is maintained

services fall into this quadrant: • New curbside organics service; • Woodlands Water Play Park; • Heritage sites; • Cultural services; and • Cultural programs and events.

or increased and that these services continue to be perceived as a strength.

51


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Figure 46

2012 Importance versus Satisfaction with City of St. Albert Services Primary Areas of Consideration

5.00

8

34

Importance Rating

35 4.00

33

3.50

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

10

18 17 11 9 5 25 32 32 26 12 7 6 29 31 23 16 4 14 30 28 20 13 21 15 22 27 24 19

4.50

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

1

27. 28. 29.

3.00

Secondary Areas of Consideration 2.50 2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Satisfaction Rating

5.0

30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Parks & trail system The Arden Theatre Blue Bag Curbside Recycling Woodlands Water Play Park St. Albert Public Library St. Albert Public Library programs and services Fountain Park Recreation Centre Emergency medical and fire services Recycle and Compost Depot RCMP police services Recreation services Recreational programs and activities Cultural services Cultural programs and events Heritage Sites New curbside organics service Sanitary sewer services Garbage Collection Services Winter road maintenance Outdoor Rinks Grosvenor outdoor pool Art in Public Places Akinsdale or Kinex Arena Visual Art Studios Summer road maintenance Family and Community Support Services Art Gallery of St. Albert Servus Credit Union Place Traffic safety and parking enforcement Animal control enforcement Community standards enforcement St. Albert Public Transit Building permits Attracting and supporting local business Land use planning and approvals

Note: Quadrant axes set at 3.95 mean satisfaction rating, 4.12 mean importance rating. Scale: 1=not at all important/very dissatisfied and 5=critically important/very satisfied

Compared with 2010, there were some changes to the results: heritage sites moved from a secondary area of improvement to a secondary strength, Fountain Park Recreation Center moved from being a secondary strength to a primary strength, and land use planning and approvals moved from being a secondary area of improvement

Respondents that felt their quality of life had improved or stayed the same over the past three years were significantly more likely to rate the following services as important compared to respondents that felt their quality of life had worsened: • Parks and trail system (94% versus 84%); • Recreation facilities (90% versus 78%); • Blue bag curbside recycling (83% versus 66%); • New curbside organics services (77% versus 52%); • Traffic safety and parking enforcement (78% versus 68%); • Cultural services (64% versus 45%); • Fountain Park Recreation Centre (83% versus 73%); • Akinsdale or Kinex Arena (70% versus 57%); • Woodlands Water Play Park (74% versus 61%); • Outdoor rinks (67% versus 57%); • Heritage sites (62% versus 51%); • Art Gallery of St. Albert (51% versus 29%); • Art in Public Places (50% versus 30%); • Visual Art Studios (46% versus 25%); • Servus Credit Union Place (76% versus 40%); • Recreational programs and facilities (86% versus 70%); • Cultural programs and events (69% versus 49%); and • Family and Community Support Services (84% versus 74%).

to a primary area of improvement. The remaining services did not change quadrants when compared to 2010.

52


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

satisfaction ratings for each of the 35 St. Albert services investigated. Table 3

Average Satisfaction and Importance Ratings City Service: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27)

Parks & trail system The Arden Theatre Blue Bag Curbside Recycling Woodlands Water Play Park St. Albert Public Library St. Albert Public Library programs and services Fountain Park Recreation Centre Emergency medical and fire services Recycle and Compost Depot RCMP police services Recreation services / facilities Recreational programs and activities Cultural services Cultural programs and events Heritage sites New curbside organics service Sanitary sewer services Garbage Collection Services Winter road maintenance Outdoor Rinks Grosvenor outdoor pool Art in Public Places Akinsdale or Kinex Arena Visual Art Studios Summer road maintenance Family and Community Support Services Art Gallery of St. Albert

Mean Ratings* Satisfaction Importance 4.56 4.42 4.34 4.34 4.32 4.31 4.29 4.28 4.27 4.14 4.14 4.12 4.06 4.05 4.05 4.04 4.01 3.97 3.90 3.90 3.87 3.86 3.85 3.83 3.77 3.77 3.76

4.48 4.22 4.24 3.99 4.31 4.18 4.16 4.86 4.35 4.70 4.35 4.21 3.73 3.83 3.70 4.05 4.54 4.60 4.60 3.84 3.72 3.43 3.91 3.34 4.32 4.28 3.42

(28) Servus Credit Union Place 3.75 3.89 (29) Traffic safety and parking enforcement 3.68 4.11 (30) Animal control enforcement 3.66 3.85 (31) Community standards enforcement 3.62 4.03 (32) St. Albert Public Transit 3.56 4.25 (33) Building permits 3.43 3.94 (34) Attracting and supporting local business 3.17 4.46 (35) Land use planning and approvals 3.16 4.17 Overall Mean 3.95 4.12 *Scale: 1=very dissatisfied/not at all important and 5=very satisfied/critically important

It is important to note, when considering the placement of the services on the map, all services fall in the upper right. That is, on average, all were rated favourably. See Figure 46a. Figure 46a

2012 Importance versus Satisfaction with City of St. Albert Services Primary Areas of Consideration

5.0 4.5 4.0

Importance Rating

For ease of reference, the following table outlines the mean importance and

3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5

Secondary Areas of Consideration

1.0 1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Satisfaction Rating Note: Quadrant axes set at 3.95 mean satisfaction rating, 4.12 mean importance rating. Scale: 1=not at all important/very dissatisfied and 5=critically important/very satisfied

53


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

3.6.1 Suggested Changes or Improvements to City Services Respondents most frequently stated that not raising taxes or reducing taxes (7%) was the one change or improvement that would better meet their needs. See Table 4, below, for responses provided by at least 3% of respondents. Table 4

What one change or improvement in the service provided by the City of St. Albert would do most to better meet your needs? 2012 (n=800) Do not raise taxes / reduce taxes / do not raise taxes for Servus Credit Union Place Improve pay-as-you-throw garbage collection / should allow tags to be used in the following year / more public garbage cans / a garbage dump / RV sewage dump Improved transit services / more direct routes / better information line / add bike racks to buses / lower fees Improve programs and services / management / decrease fees at Servus Place / decrease fees for recreation Parks, green space and trail maintenance / tree maintenance / more parks / dog parks / clean up river / more trails More programs for seniors are needed / better senior services / accessibility Better snow removal particularly in residential areas / sidewalks None â&#x20AC;&#x201C; no areas of improvement Other (less than 3% of respondents) Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know / Refuse

Percent of Respondents 2009 2008 2007 2010 (n=800) (n=800) (n=800) (n=800)

2006 (n=800)

7

6

9

13

5

7

6

2

5

2

5

5

5

7

6

5

5

5

4

4

5

5

1

-

3

5

4

2

7

-

3

2

1

-

1

-

3

3

5

2

6

5

6 46 25

4 44 31

3 56 20

3 51 23

4 60 18

3 60 23

54


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

3.7

Final Report

Contact with City of St. Albert Employees

Respondents were next asked questions regarding the service they received from St. Albert employees. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of respondents had been in contact with a City employee in 2012, while 33% had not. Of those that had been in contact (n=535), respondents were most likely to indicate they had in person contact (48%), followed by contact by phone (44%). See Figure 47, below. Figure 47

Contact with City of St. Albert Employee 100%

67%* were in contact in 2012 80%

60%

41%41% 38% 37% 36% 33%

40%

20% 7% 5%4%5% 5% 4%

3%2%3% 3%

1%2%

0% 2012

2010

Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to have contacted a City employee by e-mail or the internet included:

49% 49% 45% 49% 48% 48% 44% 44% 44% 44% 44%

48%

By Phone

Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to have contacted a City employee in person included: • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (51% versus 41% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); • Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (51% versus 38% of those that disagree); and • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (49% versus 38% of those that were dissatisfied).

62% in 2010, 59% in 2009, 59% in 2008, 63% in 2007, 64% in 2006

In Person

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

E-mail 2009

2008

Mail/Fax 2007

No Contact

Respondents that generally disagreed that council effectively plans for the future (12% versus 5% of those that agree); and Respondents that have lived in the City for more than 10 years (8% versus 1% of respondents that have lived in the City for 10 years or less).

Respondents that felt they received poor or fair value for their tax dollars were significantly more likely to contact a City employee over the phone (51% versus 41% percent of respondents that felt they received good, very good, or excellent value for their tax dollars).

2006

*Method of contact was based upon the 67% of respondents (n=535) in 2012 that had contact with a City employee

55


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

3.7.1 Satisfaction with City Employees The majority of respondents (83%) expressed satisfaction regarding the service provided by City employees, with 20% being somewhat satisfied and 64% being very satisfied. Overall satisfaction ratings remained comparable to 2010. See Figure 48, below.

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be satisfied with the service provided by City employees included: •

Figure 48

Satisfaction with Service Provided by City Employees* 64%

68% 61% 61% 61% 65%

Very Satisfied

20%

19%

27% 21% 25% 20%

Somewhat Satisfied

5%

4% 3% 5% 4% 5%

Neutral

5%

4% 4% 5% 4% 6%

Somewhat Dissatisfied

5%

5% 5% 7% 7% 5%

Very Dissatisfied

0% 2012 (n=535)

• 20%

40%

60%

80%

2010 (n=489)

2009 (n=470)

2008 (n=465) 2007 (n=506) Base: Respondents who have been in contact with a City employee

2006 (n=507)

Respondents residing in the South West quadrant (90% versus 79% of respondents in the South East quadrant); Respondents that felt their quality of life had improved or stayed the same over the past three years (86% versus 67% of respondents that felt it had worsened); Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (91% versus 73% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (88% versus 67% of those that disagree); Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (87% versus 67% of those that were dissatisfied); and Respondents age 65 and older (89% versus 81% of those aged 35 to 54).

100%

*1% of respondents indicated they did not know in 2012

56


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

3.8

Final Report

Perceptions of Safety in St. Albert

Over two-thirds (68%) of respondents somewhat (39%) or strongly (29%) agreed that St. Albert is a safe place to live, while 23% were neutral in this regard. Eight percent (8%) of respondents disagreed to some degree that St. Albert is a safe place to live. In 2012 there was a significant decrease in the proportion of respondents that somewhat or strongly agreed St. Albert was a safe place to live (69% versus 91% in 2010).See Figure 49, below. Figure 49

Level of Agreement that St. Albert is a Safe Place to Live* 29% Strongly agree

46% 44% 46% 38% 43%

39%

45% 46% 45% 47% 46%

Somewhat agree 23%

7% 4%7% 9% 3%

Neutral

6%

2% 2% 4% 4% 7%

Somewhat disagree

3%

Strongly disagree

<1% 1% 1% 2% 1%

0% 2012 (n=800) 2008 (n=800)

20%

40% 2010 (n=800) 2007 (n=800)

60%

80% 2009 (n=800) 2006 (n=800)

100%

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to agree St. Albert is a safe place to live included: • Respondents residing in the South East quadrant (74% versus 65% of respondents in the North West quadrant); • Respondents that felt their quality of life had improved or stayed the same over the past three years (70% versus 60% of those that felt it had worsened); • Respondents that had been in contact with a City employee (73% versus 60% of respondents that had not); • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (77% versus 60% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); • Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (71% versus 60% of those that disagree); • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (70% versus 59% of those that were dissatisfied); and • Respondents age 65 and older (74% versus 59% to 66% those aged 18 to 34 and 55 to 64).

*<1% of respondents indicated they did not know in 2012

57


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Youth vandalism (34%) and drugs in the community (32%) were the greatest concerns to respondents in terms of safety and crime. Theft and burglary (25%), youth crime (9%) and vandalism in general (9%) were also frequently mentioned by respondents. See Table 5, below, for issues mentioned by at least 2% of respondents. For all mentions, refer to the detailed data tables provided separately. Table 5

What would you say are the safety and crime issues of greatest concern to you, if any?

Youth vandalism Drugs in the community Theft/burglary Youth crime in general Vandalism in general Traffic safety in general Speeding Crime in general Car theft None â&#x20AC;&#x201C; no safety concerns Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know

2012 (n=800) 34 32 25 9 9 6 6 4 2 12 2

Percent of Respondents * 2010 2009 2008 2007 (n=800) (n=800) (n=800) (n=800) 30 37 36 42 40 44 39 33 29 27 22 29 9 11 9 12 6 2 2 3 8 7 7 5 8 7 6 5 4 9 9 9 <1 <1 1 1 8 7 11 8 3 3 3 3

2006 (n=800) 56 34 18 10 5 7 4 9 1 5 4

*Multiple mentions

58


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

3.9

Final Report

Neighbourhood Development

Table 6

Regarding neighbourhood development in St. Albert, respondents were asked if there were any issues within their neighbourhood residents could work on together to help strengthen their neighbourhood. Of the respondents

that

identified

an

issue

(n=322),

developing

a

neighbourhood watch program such as crime watch or citizen patrol was mentioned by 21% of respondents, followed by knowing neighbours or being better neighbours (15%) and hosting block parties or community events (12%). See Table 6. Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to identify an issue or area of improvement included: •

• •

• •

Respondents residing in the South East quadrant (46% versus 32% of respondents in the North East quadrant); Male respondents (45% versus 36% of female respondents); Respondents that disagreed that council effectively plans for the future (49% versus 38% of those that were neutral or generally agreed); Respondents age 35 to 64 (43% to 45% versus 34% of those age 65 and older); Respondents that felt their quality of life had worsened (52% versus 39% of those that felt it had stayed the same or improved); and Respondents that had been in contact with a City employee (43% versus 35% of those that had not).

Issues or Areas of Improvement that Residents Could Work Together to Resolve or to Help Strengthen the Neighbourhood Base: Respondents that indicated there are issues or areas of improvement in their neighbourhood that residents could work together to resolve or to help strengthen the neighbourhood

Percent of Respondents* 2012 (n=322)

2010 (n=362)

2009 (n=315)

Neighbourhood watch / crime watch / citizen patrol / partners in the park

21

21

22

Knowing neighbours / Watching out for neighbours / collective relations /being better neighbours

15

11

13

Block parties / community events / involvement

12

9

2

Clean up the look of the neighbourhood / keeping yards tidy

8

7

11

Crime (general) / vandalism

6

7

3

Maintenance of walking trails / roads / potholes / sidewalks / parks / snow removal

6

9

5

Pick up garbage / litter / clean up after pets / litter education

4

11

10

Speeding / traffic concerns

4

6

6

Sense of community / pride / community spirit

3

-

-

Noise issues

3

3

1

*Multiple mentions.

59


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

When respondents were asked if residents in their neighbourhood would be willing to work together on local issues or projects that would help improve their neighbourhood, 71% of respondents indicated yes, while 14% indicated no. Fifteen percent (15%) of respondents were unsure on this matter. Results remained comparable to those in 2010. See Figure 50, below.

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to indicate residents in their neighbourhood would be willing to work together to help improve the neighbourhood included: â&#x20AC;˘

Figure 50

Willingness of Residents to Work Together to Improve the Neighbourhood

â&#x20AC;˘

Respondents that have been in contact with a City employee (73% versus 66% of those that had not); and Respondents age 35 to 54 (75% versus 66% of respondents age 65 or older).

100% 80%

71%

68%

72%

60% 40% 20%

14% 15% 13%

15% 17% 15%

No

Don't know

0% Yes 2012 (n=800)

2010 (n=800)

2009 (n=800)

60


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

As illustrated in Figure 51, seventy-nine percent (79%) of respondents indicated they personally would be willing to participate in the process of

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

resolving key neighbourhood issues or work cooperatively with their

Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to indicate they would personally be willing to participate in key neighbourhood issues or be involved in local development projects included: • Male respondents (83% versus 74% of female respondents); • Respondents residing in the South East quadrant (82% versus 73% of respondents in the South West quadrant); • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (81% versus 68% of those that were dissatisfied); and • Respondents age 18 to 34 (91% versus 75% of those age 65 and older).

neighbours on a local development project. Sixteen percent (16%) of respondents reported they would not be willing to take part in such activities, while 6% were unsure on this matter. Results remained comparable to 2010. Figure 51

Willingness To Take Part in Resolving Key Neighbourhood Issues or Be Involved in a Local Development Project 100% 80%

79% 76% 82%

60% 40% 16% 18% 14%

20%

6%

6%

4%

0% Yes

No 2012 (n=800)

2010 (n=800)

Don't know 2009 (n=800)

61


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

New in 2012, respondents were asked to indicate their sense of belonging in St. Albert. Over two-thirds (68%) of respondents felt their sense of belonging was as strong (4 or 5 out of 5). Nearly one-quarter (23%) of respondents were neutral, while 8% indicated a weak sense of belonging (1 or 2 out of 5). See Figure 52, below. Figure 52

Sense of Belonging in St. Albert* Very Strong (5)

29%

(4)

39%

(3)

23%

(2)

6%

Very weak (1)

3%

0%

20%

40% 2012 (n=800)

60%

80%

100%

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to indicate a strong or very strong sense of belonging included: • Respondents residing in the South East quadrant (74% versus 65% of respondents in the North West quadrant); • Respondents that felt their quality of life had improved or stayed the same over the past three years (70% versus 60% of those that felt it had worsened); • Respondents that had been in contact with a City employee (73% versus 60% of those that had not); • Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (77% versus 60% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); • Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (71% versus 60% of those that disagree); • Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (70% versus 59% of those that were dissatisfied); and • Respondents age 65 and older (74% versus 59% to 66% of those age 18 to 34 and 55 to 64).

*<1% indicated they did not know *New question in 2012

62


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

3.10 Views Towards Property Taxes Consistent with previous survey years, the majority (95%) of respondents owned their home in St. Albert, while 4% indicated they rented. Only those respondents that owned their homes (n=762) were asked questions about

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

property taxes. See Figure 53, below.

Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to indicate that they rent their home include:

Figure 53

• Respondents that felt their quality of life had improved or stayed the same over the past three years were (5% versus 1% of respondents that felt their quality of life had worsened);

Do you own or rent a home in the City of St. Albert? * 100%

95% 96% 94% 95% 94% 93%

• Respondents that had lived in the City for 10 years or less (12% versus 3% of respondents that have lived in the City more than 10 years); and • Respondents age 18 to 54 and 65 and older (4% to 27% versus 1% of respondents age 55 to 64).

80%

Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to indicate that they own their home include:

60%

• Respondents that were dissatisfied that with the way St. Albert is currently run (100% versus 95% of those were generally satisfied or neutral);

40%

20% 4% 4% 6% 5% 6% 7% 0% Own 2012 (n=800) 2008 (n=800)

Rent 2010 (n=800) 2007 (n=800)

2009 (n=800) 2006 (n=800)

• Respondents that had lived in the City for more than 10 years (97% versus 88% of respondents that have lived in the City10 years or less); and • Respondents age 35 and older (96% to 99% versus 66% of respondents age 18 to 34).

*<1% indicated they did not know in 2012

63


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Property owners (n=762) were asked to indicate the value they received for their tax dollars. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of respondents indicated that they received excellent value (5%), very good value (20%), or good value (32%)

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

in 2010. In contrast, 42% indicated they received fair (32%) or poor (10%)

Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to indicate they receive good, very good, or excellent value for their tax dollar included:

value. See Figure 54, below

Figure 54

for their tax dollars, a significant decrease compared to 39% of respondents

Perceived Value for Tax Dollar* •

5%

6%

Excellent Value

20% 11% 9% 8% 8%

Very Good Value

23%

Good Value

• 32% 32%

39%

38%

39%

39%

32%

24%

37% 40% 39%

Fair Value

39%

Female respondents respondents(62% (62%versus versus52% 52% of male of male respondents); Respondents that thatfelt felt their their quality quality of lifeofhad life had improved or stayed stayed the thesame sameover overthe thepast pastthree three years (63% (63% versus versus19% 19%ofofthose those that that feltfelt it had it had worsened); neutral or generally Respondents that thatwere were neutral or generally agreed that council council effectively effectively plans plansfor forthe thefuture future (64% versus 30% of those that disagree); generally satisfied or Respondents that thatwere were generally satisfied or St.St. Albert is currently run run neutral with withthe theway way Albert is currently (64% versus 21% of those that were dissatisfied); and Respondents age 65 and older (63% versus 53% of those age 35 to 54).

10% 7%

13% 18% 13%

Poor Value

13%

<1%

Unsure

1%

1% 1% 1% 1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

2012 (n=762)

2010 (n=767)

2009 (n=750)

2008 (n=757)

2007 (n=744)

2006 (n=739)

100%

Base: Property Owners

*Prior to 2010, “Excellent Value” was not offered as a response.

64


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

When asked why they felt they received excellent, very good or

Taxes being high and continuing to rise (17%), followed by taxes

good value for their tax dollar, respondents most frequently

being too high in comparison to the services being received (15%)

mentioned that they were satisfied with the services provided

as well as taxes being too high compared to other cities (15%) were

(17%), followed by the high quality of snow removal the City

the top reasons for respondents believing their tax dollar represents

provides (10%), and that there is a need to pay for services but

fair or poor value. In previous survey years “excellent” was not a

residents receive better services for the higher tax rate (10%). In

response option, therefore results from 2012 are not comparable.

previous survey years “excellent” was not a response option,

See Table 8.

therefore results from 2012 are not comparable. See Table 7.

Table 8

Reasons for Believing Tax Dollar Represents Fair or Poor Value

Table 7

Reasons for Believing Tax Dollar Represents Excellent, Very Good or Good Value Percent of Respondents*

Base: Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value.

2012 (n=436)

Percent of Respondents*

Base: Respondents that felt they received fair or poor value.

2012 (n=323)

Taxes are high / continue to rise

17 15

Satisfied with services provided

17

Good snow removal

10

Taxes are high in comparison to services received / We’re not getting good value for the money Taxes are high compared to other cities / communities with the same facilities and services

Need to pay for services / get what you pay for / charge more than other cities but get better services

10

The City spends excessively / wastes money / funds too many projects

10

Lack of industrial tax base / Need to attract businesses

7

Condo fees pay for services already / taxes for condos are too high

6

Council does not listen / lack of action / poor leadership / lack of transparency sidewalk

5

Good place to live / high standard of living Good maintenance on streets / roads Nice parks and trees / trail system *Multiple responses

9 8 8

15

*Multiple responses

65


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Property owners (n=762) were then presented with three five-year tax strategies and asked to indicate which they supported. Sixty-five percent (65%) of respondents stated they would support an inflationary tax increase to maintain services. In addition, thirteen percent (13%) of respondents

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to support an inflationary increase included: •

supported a tax decrease to reduce services from the City, while 8% supported a tax increase to enhance the level of service provided by the City. Responses remained comparable to 2010. See Figure 55, below.

Figure 55

Support for Five Year Tax Strategy

65%

63% 62% 59% 66% 61%

Inflationary tax increase to maintain services

13%

13% 15% 16% 10% 12%

Tax decrease to reduce services

Respondents that felt their quality of life had improved or stayed the same over the past three years (69% versus 44% of those that felt it had worsened); Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (74% versus 54% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (70% versus 49% of those that disagree); and Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (70% versus 42% of those that were dissatisfied).

8%

9% 10% 8% 7% 10%

Tax increase to enhance services

Depends

11%

10% 10% 12% 14% 13%

Depends 2%

5% 3% 5% 4% 5%

Don't know

0% 2012 (n=762) 2008 (n=757)

Base: Property Owners

20%

2010 (n=767) 2007 (n=748)

40%

60% 2009 (n=750) 2006 (n=739)

80%

100%

Respondents who have other factors impacting their support of the City’s tax strategies (n=82): • Services maintained without a tax increase / No increase (3%); • No tax increase / need better management of existing taxes (1%); and • Encourage incoming industry and commercial business to help support the tax base (1%).

66


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

3.11 Municipal Leadership When asked to state the most important issues facing St/ Albert City Council today, respondents most often mentioned industrial development with the need to attract more business and economic development (21%, an increase compared to 6% in 2010) followed by the issue related to the lack of a strong tax base and the need to attract more industry (15% an increase compared to 7% in 2010). See Table 9, below. Table 9

What would you say is the most important issue facing St. Albert City Council Today? 2012 (n=800) Industrial development / attract more businesses / economic development Lack of a strong tax base / need to attract industry Rising taxes / taxes / property taxes The budget / balancing the City budget / keeping expenses down / debt / wasting money / funding Land development / management / planning do not over develop / rezoning / balance development Poor management / decision making / speed / need to develop a vision for the future / being on the same page Population growth / control growth of City

Percent of Respondents * 2010 2009 2008 2007 (n=800) (n=800) (n=800) (n=800)

2006 (n=800)

21

6

10

2

1

1

15

7

6

7

6

3

9

8

13

13

8

8

8

9

14

8

7

6

7

12

5

5

9

6

4

2

2

3

1

2

3

4

--

--

7

8

*Multiple responses

67


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

In 2012, there was a significant decrease in the proportion of respondents that agreed overall of respondents agreed overall with the statement, “St.

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

(45% versus 59% in 2010). In addition, one-third (33%) of respondents were

Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to agree City Council is effectively planning for the future of the community included:

neutral in this regard (a 9% increase from 2010), and 20% disagreed overall

Albert City Council is effectively planning for the future of the community”

with the statement (a 9% increase from 2010). See Figure 56, below. •

Figure 56

Level of Agreement that St. Albert City Council is Effectively Planning for the Future of the Community 9%

13% 11% 10% 8% 12%

Strongly agree

Respondents that felt their quality of life had improved or stayed the same over the past three years (49% versus 20% of those that felt it had worsened); Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (54% versus 30% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); and Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run (52% versus 5% of those that were dissatisfied).

35%

46% 47% 41% 38% 49%

Somewhat agree

Neutral 18% 8% 8%

Somewhat disagree

24% 25% 24% 27%

33%

14%

12% 14% 11%

5%

3% 5%

Strongly disagree

5%

9% 9%

3%

6% 4% 4% 4% 5%

Don't know

0% 2012 (n=800) 2008 (n=800)

20%

40%

2010 (n=800) 2007 (n=800)

60%

80%

100%

2009 (n=800) 2006 (n=800)

68


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

New in 2012, respondents were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with the way in which St. Albert is being run. Sixty percent (60%) of respondents felt either very satisfied (12%) or somewhat satisfied (48%), while 24% were neutral and 16% were dissatisfied to some extent. See Figure 57, below.

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be very or somewhat satisfied with the way in which St. Albert is being run included: •

Figure 57

Satisfaction with the way in which St. Albert is being run* Very satisfied

12%

Somewhat satisfied

48%

Neutral

24%

Somewhat dissatisfied

12%

Very dissatisfied

Don't know

Respondents that felt their quality of life had improved or stayed the same over the past three years (66% versus 23% of those that felt it had worsened); Respondents that felt they received excellent, very good, or good value for their tax dollars (75% versus 39% of those that felt they received fair or poor value); and Respondents that were neutral or generally agreed that council effectively plans for the future (71% versus 16% of those that disagree).

4%

1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 (n=800)

*New question in 2012

69


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

When rating their level of agreement with statements regarding personal dealings with the City, the majority (72%) of respondents agreed to some extent that the City works effectively with community groups. See Table 10, below. Table 10

Level of Agreement with Statements Regarding Personal Dealings with the City* Percent of Respondents (n=800) Strongly Agree

Somewhat Agree

Neutral

Somewhat Disagree

Strongly Disagree

D/K N/S

The City of St. Albert is accountable to the community for leadership and good governance

23

41

22

9

5

1

The City of St. Albert works effectively with community groups to deliver various events and programs.

20

52

17

4

1

6

The City of St. Albert does the best it can with the money available

13

34

24

18

8

3

The City of St. Albert makes informed decisions.

11

41

26

13

5

4

The City of St. Albert practices open and accountable government

11

42

27

11

7

2

The City of St. Albert always takes residents’ views into consideration when making decisions that affect them

7

33

25

21

11

3

*New question in 2012

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondents that felt their quality of life had improved or stayed the same over the past three years were significantly more likely to agree with the following statements compared to respondents that felt their quality of life had worsened: • The City is accountable for leadership and good governance (68% versus 40%); • The City practices open and accountable government (58% versus 27%); • The City does the best it can with the money available (52% versus 14%); • The City always takes residents’ views into consideration (44% versus 13%); • The City works with community groups to deliver events and programs (75% versus 56%); and • The City makes informed decisions (56% versus 27%). Female respondents were significantly more likely to agree with the following statements compared to male respondents: • The City is accountable for leadership and good governance (68% versus 61%); • The City does the best it can with the money available (53% versus 41%); and • The City works with community groups to deliver events and programs (77% versus 68%). Respondents residing in the South West quadrant were significantly more likely to agree that the City does the best it can with the money available (52% versus 42% of respondents in the North West quadrant). 70


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

3.12 Top Priorities for the City of St. Albert Respondents were asked to list the top priorities for the City of St. Albert. Community development and economic development were each mentioned by 56% of respondents, followed by governance (25%), and environment (18%). Sixteen percent (16%) provided a response other than what was provided. See Figure 58, below.

Other Priorities Mentioned • • • • •

Reduce taxes (9%); Affordable housing, including seniors’ housing (3%); Reduction of activity involving drugs (1%); Reduce photo radar (1%); and Improve education facilities (1%).

Figure 58

Top Priorities for the City of St. Albert Community development

56%

Economic development

56%

Governance

25%

Environment

18%

Other

16%

Don't know

40%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 (n=800)

*Multiple responses *New in 2012

71


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

3.13 City News and Promotions Respondents most frequently stated the St. Albert Gazette as their primary source of information and news about City Hall and City services, programs and initiatives (75%). Other information sources mentioned by respondents included the City website (6%), email (4%) and mail (3%). SeeTable 11, below, for the preferred methods and other methods used by respondents to obtain information regarding the City. Table 11

What is your most preferred method of receiving news about City Hall and City services, programs, and initiatives?

St. Albert Gazette

2012 (n=800)* 75

Percent of Respondents 2012 2010 2009 (n=788)** (n=800)* (n=800)* 16 76 79

City Website

6

22

5

5

Email

4

2

4

3

Mail

3

2

5

3

Program brochures

3

6

--

--

Watch council meetings on television

2

11

1

1

St. Albert Leader

1

7

--

--

Mass mail (brochures/ booklets/ pamphlets)

1

2

3

2

Other responses (less than 1% of single responses for 2012)

6

36

3

11

No other sources used

--

20

--

--

Refuse/Don’t know

1

2

1

1

Other Methods of Revieving Information Respondents that follow issues at City Hall (n=788) were asked what other methods they used to obtain information about City Hall and City services, programs, and initiatives, responses included: • City Website (22%); • No other sources used (20%); • St. Albert Gazette (16%); • Conversations with others (14%); • Watch Council meetings on TV (11%); • St. Albert Leader (7%); • Program brochures (6%); • Chamber’s digital signs (1%); • ‘Like’ the City’s Facebook (1%); • Watch webcast of Council meetings (1%); • Attend Council meetings (1%); and • Follow the City’s Twitter (<1%).

*Single responses **Other information sources relied upon for news about City Hall and City services; see the box to the right for extended responses. Multiple responses

72


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Respondents were asked to indicate how often they read the Citylights advertising feature, published by the City of St. Albert in the Saturday edition

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

of the St. Albert Gazette. The majority (87%) of respondents read the feature

Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to always read the Citylights feature included:

at some frequency, with 37% reporting always, 40% sometimes, while 12% read the feature rarely. Results remained comparable to the 2010 findings. See Figure 59, below.

• •

Figure 59

Citylights Readership 37%

34% 30% 29% 29% 27%

Always

40%

44% 39% 38% 36% 37%

Sometimes

12%

13% 16% 17% 18% 19%

Rarely

Female respondents (41% versus 33% of male respondents); Respondents that felt their quality of life had worsened over the past three years (46% versus 36% of respondents that felt it had improved or stayed the same); Respondents that had been in contact with a City employee (40% versus 32% of respondents that had not); Respondents that own their home (38% versus 16% of those that rent); and Respondents age 35 and older (36% to 40% versus 8% of respondents age 18 to 34).

8%

6%

Never

11% 14% 13% 14%

4%

Not aware of the feature

3% 3% 1% 2% 2%

<1%

Refuse, Don't Know

0% 1% 1% 2% 1%

0% 2012 (n=800) 2008 (n=800)

20%

40%

2010 (n=800) 2007 (n=800)

60%

80%

100%

2009 (n=800) 2006 (n=800)

73


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Respondents that read the Citylights feature (n=707) were asked how valuable the information in Citylights is to them as citizens of St. Albert. In 2012, there was

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

a significant increase in the percent of respondents that found Citylights very

Respondents that were generally satisfied or neutral with the way St. Albert is currently run were significantly more likely to rate the Citylights feature valuable (92% versus 86% of those that were dissatisfied).

valuable (38% compared to 26% in 2010). In contrast, a small percentage (8%) of respondents believed Citylights was not very valuable (7%) or not at all valuable (1%) to them as citizens. See Figure 60, below. Figure 60

How valuable do you feel the information in Citylights is to you as a citizen of St. Albert? 26% 26% 21% 25% 20%

Very valuable

38%

53%

63% 59% 60% 57% 57%

Somewhat valuable 7%

8% 11% 15% 12% 16%

Not very valuable 1%

2% 2% 3% 3% 4%

Not at all valuable

1%

Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t Know

1% 2% 1% 3% 3%

0%

20%

2012 (n=707) 2008 (n=674)

40% 2010 (n=732) 2007 (n=663)

60%

80%

100%

2009 (n=689) 2006 (n=667)

Base: Respondents that read the Citylights feature

74


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Draft Report

3.14 Respondent Characteristics The following table provides a demographic profile of respondents surveyed in 2012. Table 12

Demographic Profile 2012

Percent (n=800) 2010 2009 2008

2007

Gender :

2012

Percent (n=800) 2010 2009 2008

2007

Age: Male Female

51 49

50 50

49 51

49 51

50 50

Less than $20,000 $20,000 to less than $30,000 $30,000 to less than $50,000 $50,000 to less than $75, 000 $75,000 to less than $100,000 $100,000 to less than $150,000 $150,000 to less than $200,000 $200,000 or more Refused Employment Status Working full-time, including self-employed Working part-time, including self-employed Homemaker Student Not employed Retired Refused

1 2 7 14 16 23 11 8 19

1 3 7 16 16 23 10 6 18

2 3 6 12 16 24 11 5 21

1 3 10 15 15 21 10 6 19

1 3 9 15 16 22 8 5 21

47 12 4 <1 2 36 <1

48 14 4 1 2 30 1

51 14 5 1 4 24 1

49 13 5 1 2 30 <1

56 11 5 1 2 24 1

Level of Education: Less than / graduated high school Some / graduated tech or vocational school Some / graduated college Some / graduated university Post graduate Refused

17 12 22 33 15 1

21 10 23 31 14 1

22 6 22 36 12 2

24 10 19 31 15 1

22 8 20 30 19 1

Household Income:

18 to 24 years 25 to 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years 55 to 64 years 65 years and over Refused

1 3 10 22 28 34 2

2 5 13 26 26 27 1

4 7 15 26 26 20 2

2 6 14 26 24 26 2

2 9 18 27 22 19 3

Mean age

58 years

56 years

53 years

55 years

52 years

Composition of Age groups within household Under 13 years of age 13 to 18 years 19 to 44 years 45 to 64 years 65 years or over Average Household size

16 16 40 60 37 3 people

18 22 44 63 28 3 people

22 22 50 60 23 3 people

21 20 46 59 28 3 people

27 22 55 57 22 3 people

6 13 30 51

10 14 31 45

14 15 28 43

20 15 23 42

17 18 27 38

2 98

3 97

2 98

3 97

3 97

Residence in St. Albert: 1 to 5 years 6 to 10 years 11 to 20 years Over 20 years Work for the City of St. Albert: Yes No

75


City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Draft Report

Demographic Profile 2012

Percent (n=800) 2010 2009 2008

2007

Residence: House Condo Apartment Other

87 10 1 2

84 12 1 4

-----

-----

-----

76


Appendix A Survey Instrument

77


2012 City of St. Albert Community Satisfaction Survey

FINAL Draft: April 19, 2012

Introduction

Hello, my name is ________ with Banister Research, a professional research. We have been contracted to conduct a survey on behalf of the City of St. Albert to ask your opinions about services provided to citizens by the City. Your household has been randomly dialed to participate in this study. I would like to assure you that we are not selling or promoting anything and that all your responses will be kept completely anonymous. Your views are very important to the successful completion of this study and will be used to evaluate and improve City of St. Albert services. [Interviewer Note: If residents have questions about the study they can be referred to the Information Desk at the City of St. Albert at 459-1500.]

A.

For this study, I need to speak to the (ALTERNATE: male/female) in your household who is 18 years of age or older and who is having the next birthday. And is that person available? 1. Yes, speaking 2. Yes, Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ll get him/her 3. Not now

B.

Do you live within the St. Albert City limits? 1. Yes 2. No F5 (Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know)

C.

Continue Repeat introduction and continue Arrange callback and record first name of selected respondent

Thank and end interview Thank and end interview

May I confirm your postal code: _______________ (INSERT POSTAL CODE)

D.

To ensure that we have proper geographic representation from across all of the City of St. Albert could you please tell me in which of the following areas of the City do you reside? [Quotas = 200 per quadrant] 1. North East, or east of St. Albert Road and north of the Sturgeon River (communities: Erin Ridge, Oakmont, Inglewood and Erin Ridge North) 2. North West, or west of St. Albert Road and north of the Sturgeon River (communities: Lacombe Park, Mission, North Ridge, Deer Ridge) 3. South West, or south of the Sturgeon River and west of St. Albert Road (communities: Riel, Grandin, Heritage Lakes, Downtown)

City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Page 78


4. South East, or south of the Sturgeon River and east of St. Albert Road (communities: Braeside, Woodlands, Kingswood, Pineview, Campbell Park, Akinsdale, Forest Lawn, Sturgeon Heights) F5 (Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know)

City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Page 79


E.

RECORD GENDER: WATCH QUOTAS 1. Male 2. Female

F.

This interview will take about 18 to 20 minutes. Is this a convenient time for us to talk, or should we call you back? 1. Convenient time 2. Not convenient time

Continue Arrange call-back

Quality of Life

1.

. How would you rate the overall quality of life in the City of St. Albert today? 1. Very poor 2. Poor 3. Good 4. Very good F5. Don’t know/Unable to rate

2A.

And, do you feel that the quality of life in the City of St. Albert in the past three years has… 1. Worsened 2. Stayed the same 3. Improved F5. Don’t know/Unable to rate

2B.

In your opinion, what would you say are the three most significant factors contributing to a high quality of life in the City of St. Albert? (Probe) 1. Other - Specify F5. (Don’t know/not stated)

3.

And, what would you say are the three most significant factors contributing to a low quality of life in the City of St. Albert? (Probe) 1. Other - Specify F5. (Don’t know/not stated)

4.

Next, please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement that: “The City of St. Albert is committed to preserving the natural environment”? Would you say you…? (Read list) 1. Strongly disagree 2. Somewhat disagree 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Somewhat agree 5. Strongly agree F5. (Don’t know/not stated)

City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Page 80


Satisfaction with City Services

5.

Next, I would like you to think about the specific services provided by the City of St. Albert and for each service rate your level of satisfaction. Regardless of your use, how satisfied are you personally with each of the following services. First, how satisfied are you with (Read list. Randomly rotate) …? 1. Very dissatisfied 2. Somewhat dissatisfied 3. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 4. Somewhat satisfied 5. Very satisfied F5. Don’t know/Unable to rate service a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k) l) m) n) o) p) q) r) s) t) u)

5b.

parks and trail system recreation services St. Albert public transit garbage collection services recycle and compost depot blue bag curbside recycling new curbside organics service winter road maintenance including snow removal and ice management summer road maintenance including paving, pothole repair and sidewalk maintenance RCMP police services emergency medical and fire services sanitary sewer services land drainage services animal control enforcement community standards enforcement (e.g. unsightly/nuisance properties) traffic safety and parking enforcement building permits land use planning and approvals (including development permits) attracting and supporting local business Cultural Services St. Albert Public Library

(If somewhat or very dissatisfied in Q5, ask for each: ) What specific aspects of the (insert service from Q5) dissatisfied you? 1. Other - Specify F5 (Don’t know)

5c.

Does your household currently use the blue bag service? 1. Yes GO TO Q.5e 2. No F5 Don’t know

City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Page 81


5d.

If no, why not? ______________________________ RECORD VERBATIM

5e.

Does your household currently use the curbside organics service (the green bin)? 1. Yes GO TO Q.6 2. No F5 Don’t know 5f.

If no, why not?

______________________________RECORD VERBATIM 6.

Next, I would like you to rate your level of satisfaction with each of the following facilities operated or funded by the City of St. Albert. Again, based on your own use or your general perceptions of the facility, would you say you are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with ….? (Read list. Randomly rotate.) 1. Very dissatisfied 2. Somewhat dissatisfied 3. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 4. Somewhat satisfied 5. Very satisfied F5 Don’t know/Unable to rate facility a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k) l) m) n) o) p) q)

Fountain Park Recreation Centre Akinsdale or Kinex Arena Woodlands Water Play Park Outdoor rinks Grosvenor Outdoor Pool St. Albert Public Library Heritage sites including the Musée Héritage Museum, the Little White School and the Grain Elevator Park Art Gallery of St. Albert Art in Public Places Visual Arts Studios (includes pottery and painting studios, and is the location for adult and children’s art classes) The Arden Theatre Servus Credit Union Place (also known as Servus Place, Multipurpose Recreation Centre) St. Albert Skateboard park Fowler Athletic Park Riel Multipurpose Field Clubhouses Tennis Courts

City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Page 82


6b.

(If somewhat or very dissatisfied in Q6, ask for each:) What specific aspects of the (insert service from Q6) dissatisfied you? 1. Other - Specify F5 (Don’t know)

7.

Next, how satisfied are you with each of the following programs offered by the City of St. Albert. Again, please rate your level of satisfaction based on your own experiences or your general perceptions of the programs offered. (Read list. Randomly rotate.) 1. Very dissatisfied 2. Somewhat dissatisfied 3. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 4. Somewhat satisfied 5. Very satisfied F5 Don’t know/Unable to rate program a) recreational programs and activities (Interviewer note: If respondent is unsure explain this includes summer playground programs, youth and family leisure programs, fitness, aquatic programs, wellness and sports programs, special events and celebrations) b) cultural programs and events (Interviewer note: If respondent is unsure explain this includes the International Children’s Festival, St. Albert Children’s Theatre, and performing and visual arts classes, The Arden Series, Mayor’s Gala for the Arts and the StArts Fest) c) Family and Community Support Services including family and youth preventive social support services and programs (Interviewer note: If respondent is unsure explain this includes short-term counseling, youth Asset Development programming, outreach, information and referral, block parties and neighbourhood development)

7b.

(If somewhat or very dissatisfied in Q7, ask for each:) What specific aspects of the (insert service from Q7) dissatisfied you? 1. Other - Specify F5 (Don’t know)

8.

Taking into consideration all City of St. Albert services, facilities and programs, overall, how satisfied are you with the services provided by the City of St. Albert to residents? Would you say you are …? (Read list) 1. Very dissatisfied 2. Somewhat dissatisfied 3. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 4. Somewhat satisfied 5. Very satisfied F5. (Don’t know/not stated)

City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Page 83


9.

In your view, what one change or improvement in the service provided by the City of St. Albert would do most to better meet your needs? 1. Other - specify F5. (Don’t know/not stated)

Overall Importance of City Services

10.

Next, I am going to read you the same list of services, facilities and programs that are provided by the City and are available to residents. I would like you to rate how important you feel each of the services, facilities and programs are to citizens of St. Albert. Please use a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means “not at all important” and 5 means “critically important”. (Read list. Randomly rotate) 1. Not at all important .. 5. Critically important F5. (Don’t know/not stated) a) parks and trail system b) recreation facilities c) St. Albert public transit d) garbage collection services e) recycle and compost depot f) blue bag curbside recycling g) new curbside organics service h) winter road maintenance including snow removal and ice management i) summer road maintenance including paving, pothole repair and sidewalk maintenance j) RCMP police services k) emergency medical and fire services l) sanitary sewer services m) animal control enforcement n) community standards enforcement (e.g. unsightly/nuisance properties) o) traffic safety and parking enforcement p) building permits q) land use planning and approvals (including development permits) r) attracting and supporting local business s) Cultural Services t) St. Albert Public Library u) Fountain Park Recreation Centre v) Akinsdale or Kinex Arena w) Woodlands Water Play Park x) Outdoor rinks y) Grosvenor Outdoor Pool z) St. Albert Public Library programs and services aa) Heritage sites including the Musée Héritage Museum, the Little White School and the Grain Elevator Park bb) Art Gallery of St. Albert cc) Art in Public Places

City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Page 84


dd) Visual Arts Studios (includes pottery and painting studios, and is the location for adult and children’s art classes) ee) The Arden Theatre ff) Servus Credit Union Place (also known as Servus Place, Multipurpose Recreation Centre) gg) recreational programs and activities hh) cultural programs and events ii) Family and Community Support Services including family and youth preventive social support services and programs Contact with City of St. Albert Employee

11.

Next, I would like to talk to you about your contact with a City of St. Albert employee. In the past 12 months, have you been in contact, either by phone, in person, by e-mail or by letter or fax, with any employees who work for the City of St. Albert? 1. Yes 2. No F5. (Don’t know/not stated)

12.

Go to Question 14 Go to Question 14

During your last contact with a City employee, was this contact by phone, in person, by e-mail or Internet or by mail or fax? (One response only) 1. By phone 2. In person 3. E-mail / Internet 4. Mail or fax F5. (Don’t know/not stated)

13.

Overall, how satisfied were you with the service provided by the City of St. Albert employee that you last contacted? Would you say you were (Read list)? 1. Very dissatisfied 2. Somewhat dissatisfied 3. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 4. Somewhat satisfied 5. Very satisfied F5. (Don’t know/not stated)

City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Page 85


Safety Issues in St. Albert

14.

Next, I would like you to think about safety in St. Albert. I would like to know if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with the statement that “St. Albert is a safe community to live in”? 1. Strongly disagree 2. Somewhat disagree 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Somewhat agree 5. Strongly agree F5. (Don’t know/not stated)

15.

What would you say are the safety and crime issues of greatest concern to you, if any? (Do not read. Allow multiple response if necessary) 1. None / no safety concerns 2. crime in general 3. youth vandalism 4. youth crime in general 5. traffic safety in general 6. speeding 7. safety of cyclists and pedestrians 8. drugs in the community 9. issues related to crystal meth specifically 10. theft/burglary 11. Other – please specify F5 (Don’t know)

Neighbourhood Development

16.

Are there issues or areas of improvement in your neighbourhood that residents could work on together to resolve or to help strengthen the neighbourhood (i.e. physical environment, amenities, atmosphere, collective neighbour relations)? 1. Yes 2. No F5. (Don’t know/not stated)

16b.

If yes, what would you like to see addressed in your neighbourhood? 1. Other - specify F5. (Don’t know/not stated)

City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Page 86


17.

Would the residents of your neighbourhood work together on local issues or projects that would help improve the neighbourhood? 1. Yes 2. No F5. (Don’t know/not stated)

18.

Would you be willing to take part in the process to resolve key neighbourhood issues or work with neighbours on a local development project? 1. Yes 2. No F5. (Don’t know/not stated)

18A.. Overall, how would you rate your sense of belonging to your local neighbourhood, using a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means very weak and 5 means very strong?

5.

1. Very weak …. Very strong F5 Don’t know

Property Taxes and Financial Planning

19.

Do you own or rent a home in the City of St. Albert? 1. Own 2. Rent F5. (Not stated)

20.

Go to Question 23 Go to Question 23

Property taxes in the City of St. Albert are related to the value of your property. About one-third of your property tax bill is controlled by the Province to pay for education and schools. This means that about two-thirds of your property tax bill goes to the City to fund municipal services. Thinking about the amount of your tax bill that pays for City services, would you say you receive ….? (Read list) 1. Poor value for your tax dollars 2. Fair value for your tax dollars 3. Good value 4. Very good value 5. or, Excellent value for your tax dollars F5. Don’t know/Unable to rate value

21.

What is the main reason you feel that way? 1. Other - Specify F5. (Don’t know/not stated)

City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Page 87


22.

Next, thinking about City of St. Albert services over the next five years, which of the following tax strategies do you most likely support? Would you support …? (Read list) 1. an inflationary, or cost of living, tax increase to maintain the current level of services from the City 2. a tax increase, above inflation, to enhance the level of services 3. or, a tax decrease to reduce the level of services from the City 4. (Depends – Specify) F5 (Don’t know)

Municipal Leadership

23.

What would you say is the most important issue facing St. Albert City Council today? (Do not read. Allow multiple response if necessary. Probe for clarification of issues.) 1. Other – Specify F5 (Don’t know)

24.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “St. Albert City Council effectively plans for the future of the community”? Would you say you…? (Read list) 1. Strongly disagree 2. Somewhat disagree 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Somewhat agree 5. Strongly agree F5. (Don’t know/not stated)

25.

Next, could you please tell me how satisfied you are, overall, with the way the City of St. Albert is currently being run? 1. Very dissatisfied 2. Somewhat dissatisfied 3. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 4. Somewhat satisfied 5. Very satisfied F5. (Don’t know/not stated)

City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Page 88


25a.

Thinking about your personal dealings with the City of St. Albert and anything you may have read, seen or heard, please indicate if you agree or disagree with each of the following statements [READ LIST, SINGLE RESPONSE: 1. Strongly disagree 2. Somewhat disagree 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Somewhat agree 5. Strongly agree F5. (Don’t know/not stated) a) b) c) d)

The City of St. Albert is accountable to the community for leadership and good governance The City of St. Albert practices open and accountable government The City of St. Albert does the best it can with the money available The City of St. Albert always takes residents’ views into consideration when making decisions that affect them e) The City of St. Albert works effectively with community groups to deliver various events and programs. f) The City of St. Albert makes informed decisions. Top Priorities for the City of St. Albert

26.

Thinking about all of the priorities that exist in the City of St. Albert today, please tell me the top 3 priorities that you feel the City of St. Albert should address over the next 12 months [DO NOT READ LIST – CHECK TOP THREE – REFER TO DETAILED BREIFING SHEET FOR DETAILED DEFINITIONS] 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Economic Development Community Development Environment Governance Other; specify ___________________ Don’t know

City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Page 89


City News and Promotions

The next few questions focus on news and promotions about City of St. Albert programs, services and initiatives. 25a.

What is your most preferred method of receiving news about City Hall and City services, programs, and initiatives? (Note: single response first, to gather primary source; then multiple responses to gather broader range of sources used)

1. St. Albert Gazette 2. St. Albert Leader 3. Attend Council meetings 4. Watch Council meetings on TV 5. Watch webcast of Council meetings 6. City website 7. Follow the City’s Twitter 8. Like the City’s Facebook 9. Chamber’s Digital Signs 10. 10. Program brochures 11. Conversations with others 12. Other (please specify) 13. Don’t follow issues at City Hall F5. (Don’t know/not stated) 25b.

What other information sources do you rely on for news about City Hall and City services, programs, and initiatives? (multiple response, as noted in comment above) 1. St. Albert Gazette 2. St. Albert Leader 3. Attend Council meetings 4. Watch Council meetings on TV 5. Watch webcast of Council meetings 6. City website 7. Follow the City’s Twitter 8. Like the City’s Facebook 9. Chamber’s Digital Signs 10. 10. Program brochures 11. Conversations with others 12. Other (please specify) 13. Don’t follow issues at City Hall F5. (Don’t know/not stated)

26.

The City of St. Albert has an advertising feature called Citylights that runs in the St. Albert Gazette on Saturdays and in the St. Albert Leader on Thursdays.. How often would you say you read the Citylights advertising feature? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Always Sometimes Rarely, or Never (not aware of feature)

City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

GO TO QUESTION 28 GO TO QUESTION 28

Page 90


F5 (Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know) 27.

How valuable do you feel the information provided in Citylights is to you as a citizen of St. Albert? 1. Not at all valuable. 2. Not very valuable. 3. Somewhat valuable. 4. Very valuable. F5. (Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know / not stated)

Respondent Profile

In order for us to better understand the different views and needs of citizens, the next few questions allow us to analyze the data into sub-groups. I would like to assure you that nothing will be recorded to link your answers with you or your household. 28.

About how long have you lived in the City of St. Albert? ________ RECORD NUMBER OF YEARS F5. (Refused)

29.

In what year were you born? _______ RECORD YEAR F5. (Refused)

30.

Including yourself, how many people in each of the following age groups live in your household? How many are (Read list. Record actual number) 1. Under 13 years old 2. Between 13 and 18 years old 3. Between 19 and 44 years old 4. Between 45 and 64 years old 5. 65 years of age or older F5. (Not stated)

31.

What is the highest level of education you have achieved to date? (Read list if necessary) 1. Less than high school 2. Graduated high school 3. Some or completed technical or vocational school 4. Some or completed college 5. Some or completed university 6. Post graduate F5. (Not stated)

City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Page 91


32.

Do you reside in aâ&#x20AC;Ś 1. House 2. Condo 3. Apartment building 4. Something else; _______________________ F5 (Not stated)

33.

Into which of the following categories would you place your total household income before taxes for last year that is for 2011? Would it be above or below $50,000? (If below read 1-6, if above read 7-13) 1. Less than $20,000 2. $20,000 to less than $25,000 3. $25,000 to less than $30,000 4. $30,000 to less than $35,000 5. $35,000 to less than $40,000 6. $40,000 to less than $50,000 7. $50,000 to less than $75,000 8. $75,000 to less than $100,000 9. $100,000 to less than $125,000 10. $125,000 to less than $150,000 11. $150,000 to less than $175,000 12. $175,000 to less than $200,000 13. $200,000 or more F5 (Not stated)

34.

What is your current employment status? (Read list) 1. Working full time, including self-employment 2. Working part time, including self-employment 3. Homemaker 4. Student 5. Not employed 6. Retired F5 (Not stated)

35.

And finally, do you work for the City of St. Albert? 1. Yes 2. No F5 (Not stated)

Thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s all of the questions I have. Your feedback is greatly appreciated and on behalf of the City of St. Albert we would like to thank you for your time and co-operation.

City of St. Albert 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey

Page 92


ATTACHMENT 2

CITY OF ST. ALBERT 2012 AS COMPARED TO SELECT ALBERTA MUNICIPALITIES 2008 TO 2012 AS PER MOST RECENT AVAILABLE DATA

Banister Research & Consulting Inc. (Banister Research) is pleased to provide this comparative analysis of the City of St. Albert to other Alberta municipalities. The purpose of this analysis is to compare each municipality on several areas of interest with all municipalities who have conducted similar resident surveys. In most cases the research was conducted by Banister Research. In the instances where Banister Research did not conduct the research, efforts were made to secure the most recent survey findings. All comparative findings presented are intended to provide some context for the City of St. Albert when considering the findings from their own resident survey. All participating communities have undertaken a telephone survey of their residents in the past four years regarding services provided by their municipality. These surveys typically run over one week and sample sizes are based on the population of the community and the desired margin of error for the project. The table below provides a breakdown of the participating communities, their most recent survey year and associated sample sizes. PARTICIPATING MUNICIPALITIES MUNICIPALITY

SURVEY YEAR

SAMPLE SIZE

City of St. Albert

2012

800

City of Airdrie

2012

400

City of Leduc

2012

400

City of Fort Saskatchewan

2011

400

City of Lethbridge

2011

802

City of Red Deer

2011

300

Town of Devon

2008

400

Stony Plain

2008

373

The results of four questions, common to most communities, were combined and results for the City of St. Albert were compared against the average of the other communities analyzed. The municipalities that asked comparable questions were used to provide the municipal average, which have been noted below each graph. The reader should note that the results of this analysis are not necessarily comparative due to the elapsed time since the last survey year, different populations and sample sizes for each community. However, this analysis does provide an indication of how each community is faring compared to other, similar Alberta municipalities. Graphs representing the comparative findings are presented on the following pages.


City of St. Albert 2012 Resident Survey – Municipal Comparison

Addendum – May, 28 2012

Question: Would you say, overall, the quality of life is…?

Overall Quality of Life**

*Dependent on most recent data available Municipalities used in average: Red Deer, Lethbridge **Note: Due to question revisions the 2012 responses to quality of life are not comparable to previous survey years. Question: Do you feel the quality of life in your municipality over the past three years has…?

Quality of Life in the Past Three Years 100%

80% 71%

67%

60%

40%

20%

14%

17%

13% 14% 1% 3%

0% Improved

Stayed the same St. Albert (2012)

Worsened

Don't know

Municipalities (2011)*

Municipalities used in average: Red Deer, Lethbridge **Note: Due to question revisions the 2012 responses to quality of life are not comparable to previous survey years.

2


City of St. Albert 2012 Resident Survey – Municipal Comparison

Addendum – June 1, 2012

Question: Overall, how satisfied are you with the services provided by your Municipality?

Overall Satisfaction with Municipal Services, Programs and Facilities 100% 80%

83%87%87%82% 80%

60% 40% 14%11% 13%15% 9%

20%

2% 2% 4% 5% 5%

0% Very/Somewhat Satisfied

St. Albert (2012)

St. Albert (2010)

Neutral

St. Albert (2009)

Very/Somewhat Dissatisfied

St. Albert (2008)

Municipal Average (2008-2012)*

*Dependent on most recent data available Municipalities used in average: Devon, Stony Plain and Leduc Question: Thinking about the amount of your tax bill that pays for Municipal services, would you say you receive very good, good, fair or poor value for your tax dollars?

Perceived Value for Tax Dollar 100% 80% 60%

80% 68% 62% 57% 41%

40%

37% 32% 24%

20%

40%

14%

18% 10%7%13% 4%

0% Excellent / Very Good / Good St. Albert (2012)

St. Albert (2010)

Fair St. Albert (2009)

Poor St. Albert (2008)

Municipal Average (2012)**

* Property Owners **Dependent on most recent data available Municipalities used in average: Airdrie and Leduc ‘Don’t Know’ responses are excluded

3


City of St. Albert 2012 Resident Survey – Municipal Comparison

Addendum – June 1, 2012

Question: Do you agree that your community is a safe place to live in?

Community Safety 100%

91%90%91% 93%

80% 69% 60% 40% 23% 20% 7% 7% 4% 6%

8%

2% 3% 4% 3%

0% Strongly/Somewhat Agree

St. Albert (2012)

St. Albert (2010)

Neutral

St. Albert (2009)

Strongly/Somewhat Disagree

St. Albert (2008)

Municipal Average (2011-2012)*

*Dependent on most recent data available Municipalities used in average: Fort Saskatchewan and Airdrie Question: In the past 12 months, have you been in contact, either by phone, in person or in writing, with any employees who work for your Municipality?

Contact with Municipal Employee in the Past 12 Months 100% 80% 67% 60%

62% 59% 59% 65%

40%

33%

38% 41% 41% 37%

20% 0% Yes, had contact St. Albert (2012)

St. Albert (2010)

St. Albert (2009)

No, not had contact St. Albert (2008)

Municipal Average (2008-2012)*

*Dependent on most recent data available Municipalities used in average: Stony Plain, Airdrie, Lethbridge and Devon *‘Don’t Know’ responses are excluded

4


City of St. Albert 2012 Resident Survey – Municipal Comparison

Addendum – June 1, 2012

Question: Overall, how satisfied were you with the service provided by the employee you last contacted?

Satisfaction with Service Provided by the Municipal Employee that You Last Contacted 100% 83%

87%88% 82% 84%

80% 60% 40% 20% 5% 4% 3% 5%

10% 9% 9% 12% 6%

10%

0% Very/Somewhat Satisfied

St. Albert (2012)

St. Albert (2010)

St. Albert (2009)

Neutral

St. Albert (2008)

Very/Somewhat Dissatisfied Municipal Average (2008-2012)*

*Dependent on most recent data available

Municipalities used in average: Stony Plain, Airdrie, and Devon *‘Don’t Know’ responses are excluded

5


ATTACHMENT 3

City of St. Albert 2012 Resident Survey – Seniors’ Perceived Quality of Life

Addendum – May 30, 2012

1.0 STUDY FINDINGS Banister Research was asked to conduct an analysis specifically reviewing seniors (respondents 65 years of age or older) and their perceptions regarding the quality of life in St. Albert. This analysis outlines the results from the 2012 survey of St. Albert residents, and includes an interpretive comparison to the 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2007 survey results to determine, where appropriate, if there have been shifts in the perceptions and opinions of the St. Albert seniors over the past five years. It is important to note that this analysis provides a detailed description of the findings based on City-wide weighted results.

1.1

Seniors’ Perceived Quality of Life in St. Albert

To begin the interview, respondents 65 years of age or older (n=268) were asked to think about the quality of life in St. Albert for themselves and their families, in comparison to other communities where they could live. As the question was revised in the 2012 survey instrument, responses to this question cannot be compared to previous years. As illustrated in Figure 1, below, the vast majority (99%) of respondents felt their quality of life was either good (39%) or very good (60%). Only 1% of respondents indicated their quality of life was poor or very poor. Figure 1

Overall Quality of Life in St. Albert 60%

Very Good

62%

39%

Good

Poor

Very poor

37%

0% 1%

1% 0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 Seniors (n=268) 2012 Overall (n=800)

*<1% of seniors in 2012 were unsure.

1


City of St. Albert 2012 Resident Survey – Seniors’ Perceived Quality of Life

Addendum – May 30, 2012

Table 1

2012

Overall Quality of Life in St. Albert Percent of Respondents Seniors (n=268) Overall (n=800) Very Good / Good Very Good / Good 99 99

Next, respondents were asked, in their opinion, what were the three most significant factors contributing to both a high quality of life and a low quality of life in the City of St Albert. As shown in Tables 2 and 3 on the following pages, there was a wide range of responses to each question. Respondents most often mentioned St. Albert’s parklands, green spaces, river, trail and park systems as being a factor contributing to a high quality of life (37% a decrease from 43% in 2010). This factor has consistently been the most frequent response from seniors. Other frequent mentions by seniors in 2012 included availability of options for shopping, amenities and entertainment (21%, a decrease compared to 25% in 2010), availability of services and community services (20%, consistent with 2010 results) and having a community atmosphere with friendly residents and a small town feel (20% a small decrease compared to 23% in 2010). See Table 2, on the following page, for other responses. In terms of factors contributing to a low quality of life in the City of St. Albert, the most frequently noted issue has consistently been high taxes (35% of seniors expressed concern regarding this issue in 2012, compared to 31% in 2010, 34% in 2009, 47% in 2008, 29% in 2007 and 17% in 2006). Crime and vandalism was also mentioned (12%), which remains consistent with previous surveys. Furthermore, there was a significant increase in respondents who mentioned poor management and lack of accountability with regards to City Council and a need for more community involvement in City issues (10% versus 5% in 2010). In contrast, there was a decrease in the proportion of respondents who mentioned high housing prices and a need for more affordable housing (3% versus 7% in 2010). Five percent (5%) of respondents indicated there were no factors contributing to a low quality of life. See Table 3, on pages 5 and 6.

2


City of St. Albert 2012 Resident Survey – Seniors’ Perceived Quality of Life

Addendum – May 30, 2012

Table 2

In your opinion, what would you say are the three most significant factors contributing to a HIGH quality of life in the City of St. Albert? Percent of Respondents* 2012** 2012 2010 2009 2008 2007 (n=800) (n=268) (n=214) (n=159) (n=209) (n=150) Parkland / green spaces / river / trail system / park system / wildlife / dog parks / Botanical gardens Safe place to live / low crime rate / good policing / police presence Availability of services / community services / public facilities / children’s festival / farmers market / events Availability of shopping / amenities / entertainment / restaurants / quality of business Residential community atmosphere / friendly people / community spirit / small town feel Size of the City – not too big, good layout, easy to get around / City planning Availability of recreation / sport facilities and programs / Servus Place Beautiful City / nice views / good scenery / lots of trees / physical surroundings Schools and educational opportunities / extracurricular activities / good schools Clean city / clean streets / well maintained / updated Good road maintenance and snow removal Arts and cultural opportunities / Arden Theatre / library / historic aspect Location / proximity to Edmonton Quiet, peaceful atmosphere Good place to raise children / family oriented / family services Less traffic / small population / low density Good garbage pickup / recycling program / compost program Availability of health care facilities and hospitals / medical staff

Good transit system High property values / large lots / mature neighbourhoods / layout of neighbourhoods / good neighbourhood

40

37

43

34

38

43

23

17

19

18

17

10

22

20

19

24

12

29

20

21

25

22

27

19

19

20

23

26

21

22

16

18

14

19

7

28

15

12

16

19

12

11

13

18

15

13

9

5

12

10

13

4

10

6

11

12

9

13

10

14

10

11

10

13

10

11

6

6

9

9

6

2

6 5

5 6

6 6

7 6

6 10

6 5

4

2

2

5

3

3

3

3

4

2

11

<1

3

2

2

-

1

-

3

5

4

6

7

6

3

2

<1

1

4

1

3

2

3

1

1

2 3


City of St. Albert 2012 Resident Survey â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Seniorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Perceived Quality of Life

Addendum â&#x20AC;&#x201C; May 30, 2012

In your opinion, what would you say are the three most significant factors contributing to a HIGH quality of life in the City of St. Albert? Percent of Respondents* 2012** 2012 2010 2009 2008 2007 (n=800) (n=268) (n=214) (n=159) (n=209) (n=150) The local government (unspecified) / City administration / well run / listens to citizens Taxes are reasonable / taxes are well used High Incomes / Standard of living Environmentally friendly / low pollution Not overwhelmed by industry Proximity to work / good place to work Other (less than 2% of all mentions)

3

2

2

-

2

2

2

1

2

1

1

2

2 2 2 2 13

1 1 1 1 21

1 <1 <1 15

2 1 1 17

1 1 15

3 7

*Multiple mentions. **2012 overall results

Please see below for the top three mentions made by seniors from 2007 to 2012. 2012 (n=268): 1. Parkland / green spaces / river / trail system / park system / wildlife (37%); 2. Availability of shopping / amenities / entertainment / restaurants (21%); and 3. Availability of services / community services / public facilities / farmers market (20%). 2010 (n=214): 1. Parkland / green spaces / river / trail system / park system / wildlife (43%); 2. Availability of shopping / amenities / entertainment / restaurants (25%); and 3. Residential community atmosphere / friendly people (23%). 2009 (n=159): 1. Parkland / green spaces / river / trail system / park system / wildlife (34%); 2. Residential community atmosphere / friendly people (26%); and 3. Availability of services / community services / public facilities / farmers market (24%). 2008 (n=209): 1. Parkland / green spaces / river / trail system / park system / wildlife (38%); 2. Availability of shopping / amenities / entertainment / restaurants (27%); and 3. Residential community atmosphere / friendly people (21%).

4


City of St. Albert 2012 Resident Survey – Seniors’ Perceived Quality of Life

Addendum – May 30, 2012

2007 (n=150): 1. Parkland / green spaces / river / trail system / park system / wildlife (43%); 2. Availability of services / community services / public facilities / farmers market (29%); and 3. Size of City – not too big, good layout, easy to get around (28%). Table 3

In your opinion, what would you say are the three most significant factors contributing to a LOW quality of life in the City of St. Albert? Percent of Respondents* 2012** 2012 2010 2009 2008 2007 (n=800) (n=268) (n=214) (n=159) (n=209) (n=150) High taxes (tax increase) Crime / vandalism / youth crime / drugs / drunk driving City Council (poor management/not accountable for actions/lack direction) / need more community involvement / excessive bylaws / planning Lacking industrial and commercial tax base / need more business diversity and downtown development Cost of living is high / expensive Too much traffic and traffic congestion / too many trucks / noisy / speeding Poor transit system / need more service / bus fare is too high / wants LRT Poor maintenance of existing facilities and infrastructure High price of housing / need more affordable housing (including seniors) Restrictions on garbage collection / rates / payas-you-throw system / user fees City growing too fast / too much residential development / too spread out / growing too fast / overcrowding Rising utility costs (water and sewer) / dissatisfied with sewer line Parks / trails / green spaces need maintenance/weed control / mosquito control Too much litter / garbage around the city / dog poop / river is dirty / pollution Lacking retail stores / retail is expensive Snow removal / cul-de-sacs don’t get plowed / poor street cleaning

37

35

31

34

47

29

13

12

13

11

14

16

8

10

5

7

4

10

7

6

4

4

4

1

6

4

3

2

6

2

6

7

9

7

4

7

6

6

5

7

3

7

5

4

5

6

4

8

5

3

7

6

6

8

4

3

2

4

2

4

4

3

4

6

3

6

3

5

2

2

2

3

3

3

1

5

1

1

3

2

4

4

5

5

3

1

2

2

1

1

3

1

4

5

5

6 5


City of St. Albert 2012 Resident Survey – Seniors’ Perceived Quality of Life

Addendum – May 30, 2012

In your opinion, what would you say are the three most significant factors contributing to a LOW quality of life in the City of St. Albert? Percent of Respondents* 2012** 2012 2010 2009 2008 2007 (n=800) (n=268) (n=214) (n=159) (n=209) (n=150) More health services needed / faster response from emergency services / more doctors Need more police / patrols / catch speeders / bylaw enforcement / lack of enforcement Not enough for youth to do / running around late at night / need youth programs Unfriendly people / snobbish attitude / delusional sense of grandeur Too many traffic lights / poor traffic management Nothing / no factors Other (less than 2% of total 2010 mentions)

2

3

1

<1

<1

1

2

2

<1

<1

2

3

2

1

2

-

1

<1

2

2

3

1

<1

2

2

3

-

-

1

-

5 32

5 24

8 28

9 30

2 40

5 37

*Multiple mentions. **2010 overall results

Please refer to the following page for the top three mentions made by seniors from 2007 to 2012. 2012 (n=274): 1. High taxes (tax increase) (35%); 2. Crime / vandalism / youth crime / drugs / drunk driving (12%); and 3. City Council (poor management / not accountable for actions / lacks direction / need more community input / excessive bylaws / planning) (10%). 2010 (n=224): 1. High taxes (tax increase) (31%); 2. Crime / vandalism / youth crime / drugs / drunk driving (13%); and 3. Too much traffic and traffic congestion / too many trucks / noisy / speeding (9%). 2009 (n=166): 1. High taxes (tax increase) (34%); 2. Crime / vandalism / youth crime / drugs / drunk driving (11%); and 3. Nothing / no factors contributing to a low quality of life (9%).

6


City of St. Albert 2012 Resident Survey – Seniors’ Perceived Quality of Life

Addendum – May 30, 2012

2008 (n=221): 1. High taxes (tax increase) (47%); 2. Crime / vandalism / youth crime / drugs / drunk driving (14%); and 3. Respondents did not want to pay for a recreation centre membership / were upset about the tax increase as a result of the new recreation centre / were against the new recreation centre (16%). 2007 (n=157): 1. High taxes (tax increase) (29%); 2. Crime / vandalism / youth crime / drugs / drunk driving (16%); and 3. City Council (poor management / not accountable for action / lack direction) / need more community involvement / excessive bylaws / planning (10%).

7


22/06/2012

2012 Community Satisfaction Survey July 16, 2012

Background & Purpose • Every other year starting 2010 • Contracted Banister Research & Consulting • Purpose – – – – – – – – –

Overall quality of life in St. Albert Factors contributing to quality of life Satisfaction with services, facilities & programs Overall importance of City services Contact & satisfaction with City staff P Perceptions ti off safety f t Value for tax dollar Satisfaction with municipal leadership City news and promotions

2

1


22/06/2012

Methodology • Telephone interviews with resident adults April 30 to May 9, 9 2012 • 800 interviews completed – 200 in each city quadrant

• City-wide results margin of error ±3.5%, 95% confidence level or 19 times out of 20

3

Quality of Life and contributing factors

2


22/06/2012

Overall Quality of Life 70%

62%

60%

53%

50%

44% 37%

40% 30% 20% 10%

4%

1% 0% Very good

Good

St. Albert (2012)

Poor/Very poor

Municipal Avg. (2011)*

*Red Deer & Lethbridge

5

Overall Quality of Life Past 3 Years 80%

71%

70%

67%

60% 50% 40% 30% 20%

14%

17%

13%

14%

10%

1%

3%

0% Improved

Stayed the same

St. Albert (212)

Worsened

Don't know

Municipalities (2011)* *Red Deer & Lethbridge

6

3


22/06/2012

Factors contributing to quality of life 3 - Top 3 + Top 1. Parkland, green spaces 1. High taxes (37%)

2.

3.

and river trail system (40%) A safe place to live with low crime rate and good policing (23%) Availability of services, community co u ty se services ces a and d public facilities (20%)

2.

3.

Crime / vandalism / youth crime/drugs / drunk driving (13%) Governance â&#x20AC;&#x201C; more community input / excessive bylaws / better planning / poor management poo a age e t / not accountable / lack direction (8%)

7

Community Safety

4


22/06/2012

Safe place to live 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

93% 69%

St. Albert (2012) St. Albert (2010) St. Albert (2009)

23%

St. Albert (2008)

6% Strongly/ Somewhat agree

Neutral

8%

3%

Municipal Avg Avg. (2011-2012)*

Strongly/ Somewhat disagree *Fort Saskatchewan & Airdrie

9

Safety and crime issues of concern • • • • •

Youth vandalism 34% Drugs in the community 32% Theft/burglary 25% Youth crime 9% Vandalism 9%

10

5


22/06/2012

Satisfaction with City Services and Facilities Overall

Overall satisfaction â&#x20AC;&#x201C; municipal services, programs and facilities 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

83%

80% St. Albert (2012) St. Albert (2010) St. Albert (2009) St. Albert (2008)

14%

15% 2%

Very/somewhat satisfied

Neutral

5%

Municipal Avg Avg. (2008-2012)*

Very/somewhat dissatisfied *Devon, Stony Plain & Leduc

12

6


22/06/2012

Key overall changes since 2010

+•

More are satisfied with winter road maintenance

-

(2012=74% (2012 74% 2010=68%) 2010 68%)

• Fewer are satisfied with garbage collection (2012=73% (2012 73% 2010=85%) 2010 85%)

• More agree that City is committed to the environment (2012= 78% 2010=73%)

• More are satisfied with the Woodlands Water Play Park

• Fewer are satisfied with City services (2012=83% 2010=87%) • Fewer are satisfied with emergency & fire services (2012= 86% 2010=93%)

(2012 87% 2010 (2012=87% 2010=81%) 81%)

13

Other significant changes

+•

More are very satisfied with blue bag recycling ((2012=58% 2010=54%))

• More are very satisfied with Recycling and Composting Depots (2012=49% 2010=43%

• More are very satisfied with Akinsdale/Kinex Arena (2012=22% 2010=17%

• More are very satisfied with Heritage Sites (2012=33% 2010=29%

-

• Fewer are very satisfied with RCMP police services ((2012=38% 2010=43%))

• Fewer are very satisfied with Fountain Park Recreation Centre (2012=41% 2010=45%)

• Fewer are very satisfied with Grosvenor Pool (2012=21% 2010=26%)

• More are neutral towards Recreation Programs and Activities (2012=18% 2010=14%)

14

7


22/06/2012

Overall Importance of City Services Importance vs. Satisfaction

Importance vs. Satisfaction 8 19 34 35

1

25 5 26 7 3 2 12 6 31 16 29 23 4 28 14 33 30 20 13 21 15 32

mean importance =4.12

10 18 17 11 9

27

22 24

mean satisfaction=3.95

16

8


22/06/2012

Ranking of satisfaction & importance Satisfaction Top 10

Importance Top 10

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

1. Emergency medical and fire services 2. RCMP police services 3. Garbage collection services 4. Winter road maintenance 5. Sanitary sewer services 6. Parks & trail system 7. Attracting and supporting local business 8. Recycle and Compost Depot 9. Recreation services / facilities 10. Summer road maintenance

Parks & trail system The Arden Theatre Blue Bag Curbside Recycling Woodlands Water Play Park St. Albert Public Library St. Albert Public Library programs and services 7. Fountain Park Recreation Centre 8 Emergency 8. E medical di l and d fi fire services 9. Recycle and Compost Depot 10. RCMP police services

17

Importance vs. Satisfaction 5.00

Primary Priority Areas 19 18

1

4.50

34

Importance Rating

32 35 29

4.00

3.50

8

Primary Areas of Strength

17 11 9 5 32 12 7 6 16

31 23 14 30 28 20 13 21 15 22 27 24

33

3.00

25 26

10

1

3

4

Secondary Areas of Strength

Secondary Priority Areas

City satisfaction target=4

2.50 2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Satisfaction Rating

4.5

7. 8. 9. 10. 11 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 27 28. 29.

4

2

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

5.0

30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.

Parks & trail system The Arden Theatre Blue Bag Curbside Recycling Woodlands Water Play Park St. Albert Public Library St. Albert Public Library programs and services Fountain Park Recreation Centre Emergency medical and fire services Recycle and Compost Depot RCMP police services Recreation services Recreational programs and activities Cultural services Cultural programs and events Heritage Sites New curbside organics service Sanitary sewer services Garbage Collection Services Winter road maintenance Outdoor Rinks Grosvenor outdoor pool Art in Public Places Akinsdale or Kinex Arena Visual Art Studios Summer road maintenance Family and Community Support Services A t Gallery Art G ll off St. St Albert Alb t Servus Credit Union Place Traffic safety and parking enforcement Animal control enforcement Community standards enforcement St. Albert Public Transit Building permits Attracting and supporting local business Land use planning and approvals

18

9


22/06/2012

3

Primary Areas of Strength

1

Primary Priority Areas

Higher importance >4 & higher satisfaction >4

Higher importance >4 & lower satisfaction <4

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

• Attracting & supporting local business • Land use planning & approvals • St. Albert public transit • Summer road maintenance • Family & Community Support Services • Garbage collection services • Community standards enforcement f t • Traffic safety & parking enforcement • Winter road maintenance

Sanitary sewer services Recreation services/facilities RCMP police services Recycle & compost depot Recreational programs & activities Fountain Park Recreation Centre Emergency medical & fire services St. Albert Public Library Blue bag g curbside recycling y g The Arden Theatre Parks & trail system Public Library programs & services New curbside organics service

19

4

Secondary Areas of Strength

2

Secondary Priority Areas

Lower importance <4 & higher satisfaction >4

Lower importance <4 & lower satisfaction <4

• • • •

• • • • • • • • •

Heritage sites Cultural Services Cultural programs & events Woodlands Water Play Park

Building permits Animal control enforcement Art Gallery of St St. Albert Servus Credit Union Place Akinsdale or Kinex Arena Outdoor rinks Grosvenor Outdoor Pool Art in Public Places Visual Arts Studio

20

10


22/06/2012

Suggested changes or improvements • One improvement in City services… – Do not raise taxes/reduce taxes (7%) – Improvements to waste management (6%) – Improve transit (5%)

21

Areas of focus for action • • • • • • • • •

Attracting and supporting local businesses (I= 4.46, S=3.17) Land use planning and approvals (I=4.17, S=3.16) Winter road maintenance (I=4.60, S=3.90) St. Albert Public Transit (I=4.25, S=3.56) Garbage collection services (I=4.60, S=3.97) Summer road maintenance (I=4.32, S=3.77) Family and Community Support Services (I=4.28, S=3.77) Traffic safety and parking enforcement (I=4.11, S=3.68) Community standards enforcement (I=4.03, S=3.62)

I= importance, S=satisfaction

22

11


22/06/2012

Taxation Issues

Perceived Value for Tax Dollar 4% Poor

Municipal Avg Avg. (2012)* St. Albert (2008)

10% 14% Fair

St. Albert (2009) 32% St. Albert (2010) 80%

Excellent/ very good/ good

St Alb St. Albertt (2012) 57% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

*Airdrie & Leduc

24

12


22/06/2012

Support for tax strategy Don't know 2% Depends 11% Tax increase to enhance services

2007 2008 2009 2010 2012

8%

Tax decrease to reduce services 13% Inflationary tax increase to maintain services

65% 0% 10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

25

Municipal Leadership

13


22/06/2012

Council effectively plans for the future Don't know

3%

Strongly disagree

5%

Somewhat disagree

2007 2008 2009 2010 2012

14%

Neutral

33%

Somewhat agree

35%

Strongly agree

9% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

27

Most important issue for Council today Population growth

3%

Poor management/need vision

4%

Land development/balance development

2007 2008 2009 2010 2012

7%

Budget/keep expenses down

8%

Rising taxes/taxes

9%

Lack of strong tax base/more i d t industry Industrial development/economic development

15% 21% 0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

28

14


22/06/2012

Top priorities for City should be Community development

56%

Economic development

56%

Governance

25%

Environment

18%

Other

16%

Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know

40% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

25

21

11 3

29

Perceptions about the City Takes residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; views into 7 consideration consideration Makes informed decisions Makes informed decisions Does its best with money available Does its best with money available Practices Practices open open and and accountable accountable government government

33

11

41

13

34

11

Workseffectively effectivelywith withcommunity community Works 2 groups to deliver events & groups to deliver events & programs programs Accountable for leadership and Accountable for leadership and good 23 good governance governance Strongly agree Somewhat disagree

Somewhat agree Strongly disagree

26 24

42

13 5 4 18

27

52

11 7 17

41

8 3

22

41 6 9 51

Percentage (%) Neutral Don't know

30

15


22/06/2012

Satisfaction with how City is run Don't know

1%

Very dissatisfied

4%

Somewhat dissatisfied

12%

Neutral

24%

Somewhat satisfied

48%

Very satisfied

12% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

31

Satisfaction with City employees 6% Very/somewhat dissatisfied

Municipal Avg Avg. (2008-2012)* St. Albert (2008)

10% 10% Neutral

St. Albert (2009) 5% St. Albert (2010) 84%

Very/somewhat satisfied

St Alb St. Albertt (2012) 83% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

*Stony Plain, Airdrie, Lethbridge & Devon

32

16


22/06/2012

News and Promotion

Source for City information • Primary – St. Albert Gazette 75% – City website 6% – Email 3%

• Other sources – City website 22% – St. Albert Gazette 16% – Watch Council meetings on TV 11% – St. Albert Leader 7%

34

17


22/06/2012

Citylights readership • 87% read Citylights – 37% always, 40% sometimes, 12% rarely, 8% never

• 91% find it of value – 38% very valuable, 53% valuable, 8% not very/at all valuable – 12% increase in respondents finding it very valuable

35

Conclusion • Full report is available from www stalbert ca/2012-community-satisfaction-survey www.stalbert.ca/2012 community satisfaction survey

36

18


2012 Community Satisfaction Survey Results