2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey by Beaumont-Alberta

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey Final Report June 22, 2017

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................3 QUALITY OF LIFE ............................................................................................................................................ 3 COMMUNITY IDENTITY .................................................................................................................................... 3 STRATEGIC PLAN ............................................................................................................................................ 3 OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH CITY PROGRAMS, SERVICES, AND FACILITIES.............................................................. 4 OVERALL IMPORTANCE AND SATISFACTION RATINGS............................................................................................ 5 CONTACT WITH BEAUMONT EMPLOYEES ........................................................................................................... 5 PROPERTY TAXES ........................................................................................................................................... 6 TOWN COMMUNICATION ................................................................................................................................ 6 1.0 STUDY BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................................7 2.0 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................7 2.1 SURVEY POPULATION AND DATA COLLECTION.......................................................................................... 8 2.2 DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................. 9 2.3 MUNICIPAL COMPARISON .................................................................................................................... 9 3.0 STUDY FINDINGS....................................................................................................................10 3.1 PERCEIVED QUALITY OF LIFE IN BEAUMONT ........................................................................................... 10 3.2 COMMUNITY IDENTITY ....................................................................................................................... 15 3.3 STRATEGIC PLAN ............................................................................................................................... 17 3.3.1 BEAUMONT VISION........................................................................................................................ 17 3.3.2 BEAUMONT MISSION ..................................................................................................................... 18 3.3.3 BEAUMONT VALUES ...................................................................................................................... 19 3.3.4 STRATEGIC PLAN ........................................................................................................................... 20 3.4 SATISFACTION WITH PROGRAMS, SERVICES, AND FACILITIES ..................................................................... 25 3.5 SATISFACTION WITH TOWN INFRASTRUCTURE ........................................................................................ 44 3.6 OVERALL IMPORTANCE AND SATISFACTION RATINGS ............................................................................... 51 3.7 CONTACT WITH BEAUMONT EMPLOYEES............................................................................................... 55 3.8 PROPERTY TAXES .............................................................................................................................. 59 3.9 COMMUNICATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 61 3.10 RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS......................................................................................................... 74 Appendix A â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Survey Instrument

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS In support of its values of open dialogue and collaborative relationships, Beaumont conducted a citizen satisfaction survey to ensure that satisfaction with various aspects of living in the community are maintained or increased. Overall, results of the 2017 survey demonstrated that satisfaction levels for all measures were generally high, including overall quality of life and the service provided by Beaumont employees. Specific findings of the 2017 Beaumont Citizen Satisfaction Survey included: QUALITY OF LIFE ♦ Respondents were asked what they considered to be the three (3) most significant factors that contribute to a positive quality of life in Beaumont. Forty-one percent (41%) of the respondents cited the small-town atmosphere, consistent with 41% in 2015. Over onequarter (27%) mentioned the location of the Town (i.e., proximity to Edmonton and/or the airport) (comparable to 26% in 2015), and 17% mentioned that it is quiet and/or peaceful (comparable to 13% in 2015). ♦ When asked to indicate the three (3) most significant factors that contribute to a lower quality of life, 25% of the respondents mentioned a lack of stores and/or services, comparable to 21% in 2015, 13% cited poor policing, consistent with 2015, and 12% cited high taxes (a significant decrease from 18% in 2015). ♦ At least four-fifths of the respondents each rated Beaumont as either “very good” or “excellent” with regards to being a good place to raise a family (84%), and the overall quality of life (82%) ♦ The majority of the respondents (95%, comparable to 94% in 2015) reported that they felt either “very safe” (65%) or “somewhat safe” (31%) in Beaumont.

Final Report

COMMUNITY IDENTITY

♦ Respondents were asked to indicate what came to mind when thinking about Beaumont’s community identity. Over one-quarter of the respondents (26%) cited the French culture of Beaumont, while 16% mentioned the small-town atmosphere.

♦ When asked what they considered to be Beaumont’s strengths and unique features, one quarter of respondents (25%) mentioned the French theme Beaumont and the architecture, followed by 19% who mentioned the small town atmosphere. ♦ Over half of the respondents (58%, a significant increase from 50% in 2015) either somewhat (31%) or strongly (27%) agreed that Beaumont has successfully developed a French flair and is recognized for it (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5), while over one-quarter (26%) neither agreed nor disagreed (3 out of 5). STRATEGIC PLAN ♦ Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with Beaumont’s vision. Over half of the respondents (58%, a significant increase from 50% in 2015) either somewhat (38%) or strongly (20%) agreed (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5). ♦ Respondents were next asked to indicate their level of agreement with the Beaumont’s mission. Approximately two-thirds of the respondents (66%, comparable to 61% in 2015) either somewhat (49%) or strongly (18%) agreed with Beaumont’s mission (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5). ♦ Regarding Beaumont values, respondents were informed of the four (4) values that are meant to govern Council and staff behaviour throughout their work: accountability, excellence, integrity, and respect. Seventy percent of the respondents (70%, a significant increase from 61% in 2015) either somewhat (42%) or strongly (28%) agreed with Beaumont’s values (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5). 3

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

♦ When asked to indicate their level of familiarity with Beaumont’s Strategic Plan, over two-thirds of the respondents (69%) indicated that they were either “somewhat” (60%) or “very” (9%) familiar with the Strategic Plan. ♦ Respondents were asked to indicate how important they considered each of six (6) different components of the Strategic Plan, using a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 meant “not at all important” and 5 meant “very important.” At least 80% of the respondents rated the following as important (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5): Communication and Citizen Engagement (85%), People Services (85%), Fiscal and Asset Management (83%), and Economic Development (82%). ♦ In addition to the various components comprising Beaumont’s Strategic Plan, respondents were asked if there were any areas of focus that they felt were missing from the Plan; 24% of those who suggested additional areas of focus (n=54) stated that there should be a focus on public transit and/or transit to Edmonton. ♦ Respondents were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with Beaumont’s overall direction, as outlined by the Strategic Plan. Over half of the respondents (60%, a significant increase from 47% in 2015) were either somewhat (49%) or very (10%) satisfied (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5). ♦ When asked what they considered to be the most important issue currently facing Beaumont Council, 32% of the respondents reported expansion or the accommodation of Beaumont growth; 14% of the respondents mentioned economic development and/or attracting more businesses.

Final Report

OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH CITY PROGRAMS, SERVICES, AND FACILITIES ♦ When asked to rate their level of satisfaction, overall, with the programs, services, facilities, and infrastructure provided to residents of Beaumont, nearly two-thirds of the respondents (62%) were either somewhat (48%) or very (15%) satisfied, while 30% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. ♦ At least three-quarters of the respondents each were satisfied with the following programs, services, facilities, and/or types of infrastructure: o Water and sewer systems (84% were satisfied); o Library services (82%); o Parks (outdoor rinks, water play park, skate park, etc.) (81%); o Trails (81%); o Fire services (78%); o Community events (77%); and o Water and sewer services (75%). ♦ Conversely, services that fewer than half of the respondents were satisfied with included: o Chantal Berube Youth Centre (43%); o Attracting and supporting local businesses (43%); o Municipal enforcement, such as animal or weed control and traffic infractions (37%); o Building permits (36%); o Land use planning and approvals (including development permits) (33%); o Child care programs (32% were satisfied).

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

OVERALL IMPORTANCE AND SATISFACTION RATINGS Services viewed as primary areas of improvement by respondents (i.e., services that garnered ratings of higher than average importance, but lower than average satisfaction) included:

♦ Curbside blue bag recycling, organics, and garbage collection services;

♦ Winter road maintenance, including snow removal and ice management; ♦ Summer road maintenance, including paving, pothole repair, and sidewalk maintenance; and ♦ Attracting and supporting local businesses. The following areas were determined to be key strengths or successes by respondents (i.e., services that garnered ratings of higher than average importance and satisfaction): ♦ RCMP services; ♦ Emergency medical (provided by Alberta Health Services);

Final Report

CONTACT WITH BEAUMONT EMPLOYEES ♦ Fewer than half of the respondents (48%) indicated that they had been in contact with an employee of Beaumont over the past year, while 51% had not, comparable to 2015 survey results. o Respondents who reported that they had had contact with a Beaumont employee (n=180) were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with the service provided. Over four-fifths of the respondents (82%, a significant increase from 73% in 2015) were either somewhat (21%) or very (61%) satisfied with the service they received (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5). o At least 80% of the respondents each agreed with the following (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5):  That the employee was courteous (92%);  That the employee was knowledgeable about the services they provided (88%);  That the employee showed interest in your needs (87%);  That the employee was accessible (87%); and  That the employee was responsive to your needs (84%).

♦ Fire services; ♦ Schools (provided by the Province of Alberta); ♦ Water and sewer services; ♦ Parks (outdoor rinks, water play park, skate park, etc.); ♦ Trails; ♦ Roads, sidewalks, including land drainage; and ♦ Water and sewer systems (infrastructure).

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

PROPERTY TAXES ♦ The vast majority of the respondents (94%) own their residence in Beaumont, while 5% rent, similar to 2015 survey results. o Those who own their residence (n=351) were asked to indicate which of three (3) tax strategies they would support for Beaumont, thinking about Beaumont and its services over the next five (5) years. More than half of the respondents (51%) supported a cost-of-living tax increase to maintain the current level of service from Beaumont. Twenty-one percent (21%) supported a tax increase, above inflation, to enhance or increase the level of service, while 15% supported a tax decrease to reduce the level of service. TOWN COMMUNICATION ♦ Fifty-four percent (54%) of the respondents either somewhat (36%) or strongly (18%) agreed that the Beaumont communication to residents provides them with a general awareness and understanding of priorities, projects, and initiatives undertaken by Beaumont. ♦ When asked to indicate how effective various communication methods would be, in terms of getting information to them about Town programs, services, and facilities, at least 80% of the respondents rated the following as either “somewhat” or “very” effective: o Beaumont News (89%); o Conversations with others (85%); and o Beaumont website (81%).

Final Report

♦ With regards to various types of online or social media, more than half of the respondents (51%, comparable to 55% in 2015) indicated that they would be likely to use an e-mailed electronic newsletter (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5), while 49% would be likely to use roadside signs. ♦ When asked if there were any other methods that they would use to obtain information about Beaumont, 28% of those who provided suggestions (n=126) mentioned the Beaumont website, while 27% reported that they would use the newspaper. ♦ Respondents were asked how satisfied they were with the opportunities for public engagement. Nearly half of the respondents (48%, a significant increase from 32% in 2015) were either somewhat (35%) or very (13%) satisfied (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5). ♦ One-third of respondents (33%) had participated in any public engagement opportunities provided by Beaumont in the past 12 months, while 66% did not. ♦ Respondents were asked to indicate how likely they would be to use various types of public engagement opportunities in Beaumont. More than half of the respondents (60%) indicated that they would be likely to participate in online surveys (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5).

♦ When asked if they could think of any other effective ways of getting information to them about Town programs, services, or facilities, 31% of those who provided suggestions (n=54) indicated that e-mail or an e-newsletter would be effective, followed by 26% who suggested mail-outs or flyers. 6

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

1.0

STUDY BACKGROUND

In support of its values of open dialogue and collaborative relationships, the Beaumont contracted Banister Research & Consulting Inc. (Banister Research) to conduct the 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey. The survey will enable Beaumont Administration and Council to listen to the opinions and perceptions of citizens to ensure that their satisfaction with various aspects of living in Beaumont are maintained or increased. The findings from this year’s survey provide Beaumont with insight into the perceptions and opinions of residents across a number of issues, including:

Final Report

This report outlines the results for the 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey. Comparisons to 2011, 2013 and 2015 data have been included to determine, where appropriate, if there have been shifts in the perceptions and opinions of Beaumont residents over time.

2.0

METHODOLOGY

All components of the project were designed and executed in close consultation with Beaumont (the Client). A detailed description of each task of the project is outlined in the remainder of this section.

♦ Overall quality of life in Beaumont;

At the outset of the project, all background information relevant to the study

♦ Factors contributing to Beaumont’s quality of life;

was identified and subsequently reviewed by Banister Research. The

♦ Community identity;

consulting team familiarized itself with the objectives of the Client, ensuring

♦ Opinions of Beaumont’s strategic plan;

a full understanding of the issues and concerns to be addressed in the 2017

♦ Satisfaction with various programs, services, and facilities;

survey. The result of this task was an agreement on the research

♦ The importance of Beaumont services;

methodology, a detailed workplan, and project initiation.

♦ Contact and satisfaction with municipal staff; ♦ Beaumont communication with residents; and ♦ Perceived value for tax dollars.

The survey instrument implemented in the 2015 survey formed the basis for the instrument implemented in the 2017 survey. The questionnaire was revised in consultation with the client. A copy of the final questionnaire is provided in Appendix A.

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

2.1

Final Report

Survey Population and Data Collection

The sampling strategy involved randomly dialing phone numbers from the

Telephone interviews were conducted from May 12th to May 29th, 2017.

most recent telephone directory for Beaumont. The first attempts to reach

Banister Research completed a total of 375 telephone interviews with

each listing were made during the evening or on weekends (excluding

Beaumont citizens aged 18 or older.

Sundays). Subsequent attempts were made at a different time on the

Results provide a margin of error no greater than ±5.0% at the 95%

following day.

confidence level or 19 times out of 20. The following table outlines the margin

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

of error for various sample sizes, at the 95% confidence level for a binomial

summary standard established by the Market Research and Intelligence

distribution with a 50:50 male-to-female ratio and based on a population of

Association (MRIA), there was a 14% response rate and a 60% refusal rate.

10,000 or more.

These figures do not necessarily measure respondent interest in the subject area.

Sample Size 300 200 100

Estimated Sampling Error ±5.6% ±6.9% ±9.8%

Summary of Final Call Attempts Call Classification: Completed Interviews Busy/No Answer/Answering Machine

Number of Calls: 375 1,676

Respondents Unavailable/Appointments Set

Refusals

609

Fax/Modem/Business/Not-In-Service/Wrong Number

258

Disqualified 1

Language/Communication Problem

Total

3,056

Respondents were disqualified for not meeting screening criteria (living outside of the corporate limits of Beaumont)

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

2.2

Final Report

Data Analysis

2.3

Municipal Comparison

Data analysis included cross-tabulation, whereby the frequency and

Where applicable and appropriate, findings from a number of other

percentage distribution of the results for each question were broken down

“comparable” communities are included. Through discussions with the

based on respondent characteristics and responses (e.g., overall satisfaction

Beaumont project manager, a number of municipalities were identified:

with services, contact with Beaumont employees, demographics, etc.).

♦ Stony Plain;

Statistical analysis included a Z-test to determine if there were significant

♦ Spruce Grove;

differences in responses between respondent subgroups. Results were

♦ Fort Saskatchewan;

reported as statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. The “Selected

♦ Devon; and

Sub-Segment Findings” portions of the report present selected findings from

♦ Leduc.

the cross tabulation analysis.

The findings from resident surveys conducted in each of the communities were examined. In the instance in which Banister Research did not conduct the research, efforts were made to secure the survey findings. All comparative findings presented in this report are intended to provide some context for Beaumont when considering the findings from their own resident survey.

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

3.0

STUDY FINDINGS

Results of the study are presented as they relate to the specific topic areas

Final Report Table 1 In your opinion, what would you say are the three (3) most significant factors contributing positively to your quality of life in Beaumont? Percent of Respondents*

addressed by the survey. It is important to note that any discrepancies between charts, graphs or tables are due to rounding of the numbers.

2017

2015

2013

2011

(n=375)

(n=370)

(n=360)

Small town atmosphere/small town

Good location (close to the City/Edmonton/the airport)

Quiet/peaceful

Greenery/green spaces/parks

Good amenities/services/stores

Friendly neighbors/people

airport) (comparable to 26% in 2015), and 17% mentioned that it is quiet

Walkability/easy walking access/good trail system

and/or peaceful (comparable to 13% in 2015). See Table 1, right.

Good school system

Good recreation facilities/programs

Low crime rate/safe/good police

Good place to raise a family/familyoriented

Community involvement/spirit/pride

Other (5% of respondents or less in 2017)

Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t Know/Not Stated

3.1

Perceived Quality of Life in Beaumont

To begin, respondents were asked a series of questions about their quality of life in Beaumont. First, respondents were asked what they considered to be the three (3) most significant factors that contribute to a positive quality of life in Beaumont. Forty-one percent (41%) of the respondents cited the smalltown atmosphere, consistent with 41% in 2015. Over one-quarter (27%) mentioned the location of the Town (i.e., proximity to Edmonton and/or the

Municipal Comparison Other municipalities investigated reported the small-town atmosphere, parks and proximity to Edmonton as factors contributing positively to a high quality of life in their respective municipalities. Factors contributing to a lower quality of life in other municipalities most often included traffic concerns (e.g., speeding), a limited amount of shopping and amenities, and an increase in crime rates

*Multiple responses

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

When asked to indicate the three (3) most significant factors that contribute

Next, respondents were asked to rate Beaumont in terms of a number of

to a lower quality of life, 25% mentioned a lack of stores and/or services,

different aspects. At least four-fifths of the respondents each rated

comparable to 21% in 2015, 13% cited poor policing, consistent with 2015,

Beaumont as either “very good” or “excellent” with regards to being a good

and 12% said high taxes (a significant decrease from 18% in 2015) and a lack

place to raise a family (84%, comparable to 81% in 2015), and the overall

of public transit (12%). See Table 2, below.

quality of life (82%, a significant increase from 76% in 2015). See Figure 1,

Table 2 What are the three (3) most significant factors that contribute to a lower quality of life in Beaumont? Percent of Respondents* 2017 2015 2013 2011 (n=375) (n=375) (n=370) (n=360) Lack of stores/restaurants/services/ 25 21 23 31 amenities

below. See Table 3, on the following page, for a detailed breakdown of the results. Figure 1

Rate each aspect of life in Beaumont, in terms of...*

Poor police/increasing crime levels

High taxes

Lack of public transit/driving is the only option/need inter-municipal buses

Poor access/roads are not twinned/need better traffic system

Town is growing too fast/too many people/concerned about expansion

Cleanliness and neatness of Beaumont

Lack of recreation facilities/services

Being a safe place to live

Other (5% of respondents or less in 2017)

None/nothing

Don’t Know/Not Stated

*Multiple Responses

84% 81% 84% 87% 82% 76% 82% 83% 77% 66% 74% 75% 76% 71% 75% 76% 76% 61% 65% 76% 76% 75% 85% 78%

As a place to raise a family The overall quality of life As a place to live long-term (more than 20 years) The quality of the environment

31% 28% 34% 37%

Value received for taxes 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2017 (n=375) 2015 (n=375) 2013 (n=370) 2011 (n=360) *Percent of respondents who rated each aspect as "excellent" or "very good"

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Table 3 How would you rate Beaumont in terms of…? Percent of Respondents 2017 (n=375) 2015 (n=375) Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Don’t Know/

Poor

Not Stated

2017

2015

2017

2015

2017

2015

2017

2015

2017

2015

2017

2015

As a place to raise a family 2

Being a safe place to live

As a place to live long-term (i.e., more than 20 years)

The overall quality of life

The quality of the environment

Cleanliness and neatness of Beaumont

Value received for taxes

In 2015 and 2013, this was phrased as “being a good place to raise a family”.

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report Selected Sub-Segment Findings

The respondent subgroup significantly more likely to have rated Beaumont as “excellent” or “very good,” in terms of the quality of life, overall, included those aged 18 to 54 (88%) versus those aged 55 and older (79%). Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to have rated Beaumont as “excellent” or “very good,” as a place to raise a family, included: ♦

Those aged 18 to 54 (90%) versus those aged 55 and older (80%); and

♦

Those who have had contact with a Beaumont employee within the past 12 months (88%) versus those who did not (79%).

Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to have rated Beaumont as “excellent” or “very good,” in terms of being a place to live long-term (more than 20 years), included: ♦

Those who have lived in Beaumont for 25 years or more (88%) versus those who have lived in Beaumont for 14 years or less (69% to 74%); and

♦

Those who have had contact with a Beaumont employee within the past 12 months (81%) versus those who have not (72%). Municipal Comparison

Other municipalities investigated also reported high quality of life ratings from their residents; the percent of respondents who rated their overall quality of life as “excellent” or “very good” ranged from the mid-seventies to high-eighties; Beaumont compares to the average across the five (5) municipalities investigated.

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Next, respondents were asked how safe they feel living in Beaumont; the majority of the respondents (95%, comparable to 94% in 2015) reported that they felt either “very safe” (65%) or “somewhat safe” (31%). See Figure 2, below. Figure 2

How safe do you feel living in Beaumont? 65% 65%

Very Safe

Somewhat Safe

20%

31% 30%

3% 5% 1%

Somewhat Unsafe

Very Unsafe

80%

1% 1% 0% 0%

20%

2017 (n=375)

40%

2015 (n=375)

60%

80%

100%

2013 (n=370)

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Those who have lived in Beaumont for 10 to 14 years (100%) or 15 to 24 years (97%) were significantly more likely to have felt either ”somewhat” or “very” safe living in Beaumont versus those who have lived in Beaumont for 6 to 9 years (88%).

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

3.2

Final Report

Community Identity

When asked what they considered to be Beaumont’s strengths and unique

In the next section of the survey, respondents were asked a series of

features, one quarter (25%) of respondents mentioned the French theme of

questions concerning their perception of Beaumont, in terms of its

Beaumont and the architecture, followed by 19% who mentioned

community identity. First, respondents were asked to indicate what came to

Beaumont’s small town atmosphere. See Table 5, below.

mind when thinking about Beaumont’s community identity. Over one-quarter

Table 5

of the respondents (26%) cited the French culture of Beaumont, while 16%

What do you consider to be the Beaumont’s strengths and unique features?

mentioned the small-town atmosphere. See Table 4, below.

Percent of Respondents* 2017

2015

2013

2011

(n=375)

(n=370)

(n=360)

French theme/architecture (green roofs)

Small town atmosphere

Good location (close to the airport and the City)

Table 4 In terms of community identity, when you think about Beaumont, what is the first thing that comes to mind? Percent of Respondents* 2017 2015 2013 2011 (n=375) (n=375) (n=370) (n=360) French/French village

Small town atmosphere

Family/family atmosphere

Community spirit/sense of community

Church on the hill

Good walking paths/bicycle paths

Friendly/friendly people/friends

Friendly/friendly people

Nice town/good place to live

Quiet/peaceful

Lots of parks/green spaces/playgrounds

Other (2% of respondents or less in 2017)

Lots of activities for families/family oriented

Nothing

Other (4% of respondents or less in 2017)

Don’t Know/Not Stated

Nothing

Don’t Know/Not Stated

*Multiple responses

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 meant “do not agree at all” and 5 meant

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

“strongly agree,” respondents were next asked to indicate to which degree

Those aged 18 to 54 (65%) were significantly more likely to have agreed that Beaumont has successfully developed a French flair versus those aged 55 and older (52%).

they agreed that Beaumont has successfully developed a French flair and is recognized for it. Over half of the respondents (58%, a significant increase from 50% in 2015) either somewhat (31%) or strongly (27%) agreed (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5), while over one-quarter (26%) neither agreed nor disagreed (3 out of 5). See Figure 3, below. Figure 3

Level of Agreement that Beaumont has successfully developed a French flair (5) Strongly Agree

27% ↑ 17% 23% 20%

(4)

31% 33% 24% 31% 26% 26% 32% 32%

(3) 9% 13% 14% 11%

(2)

6% 9% 5% 4%

(1) Do Not Agree At All 0% 2017 (n=375)

2017 Mean = 3.66 out of 5 2015 Mean = 3.36 out of 5 2013 Mean = 3.45 out of 5 2011 Mean = 3.53 out of 5

20%

2015 (n=375)

40%

60%

2013 (n=370)

80%

100%

2011 (n=360)

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

3.3

Strategic Plan

Respondents were next asked a series of questions about Beaumont’s vision,

Final Report Figure 4

Level of Agreement with Beaumont's Vision

mission statement, values, and the Strategic Plan.

3.3.1 Beaumont Vision Respondents were read Beaumont’s vision, as follows: “Beaumont is a prosperous, vibrant, healthy, family-oriented community that welcomes diversity, nurtures business, promotes excellence and is environmentally conscious, while celebrating its French heritage.” Next, respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with

20% ↑ 13% 16% 11%

(5) Strongly Agree

38% 37% 33% 2017 Mean = 3.59 out of 5 40% 2015 Mean = 3.37 out of 5 26% 2013 Mean = 3.43 out of 5 30% 2011 Mean = 3.45 out of 5 34% 35%

(4)

(3) 9% 11% 11% 10%

(2)

Beaumont’s vision (above), using a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 meant “do not agree at all” and 5 meant “strongly agree.” Over half of the respondents (58%, a significant increase from 50% in 2015) either somewhat (38%) or strongly (20%) agreed (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5), while over one-quarter (26%) neither agreed nor disagreed (3 out of 5). See Figure 4, right.

5% 8% 5% 4%

(1) Do Not Agree At All 0% 2017 (n=375)

20%

2015 (n=375)

40%

60%

2013 (n=370)

80%

100%

2011 (n=360)

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

3.3.2 Beaumont Mission Next, respondents were provided with Beaumont’s mission, as follows: “To provide quality programs and services to residents, organizations, visitors and business community so that life is better in Beaumont.” Using the same 5-point scale, respondents were asked to indicate their level

Final Report Figure 5

Level of Agreement with the Town's Mission 18% 17% 23% 16%

(5) Strongly Agree

49% 45% 43% 48%

(4)

of agreement with Beaumont’s mission. Approximately two-thirds of the respondents (66%, comparable to 61% in 2015) either somewhat (49%) or

24% 23% 22% 25%

(3)

strongly (18%) agreed with Beaumont’s mission (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5), while over one-fifth of the respondents (24%) provided a neutral rating (3 out of 5). See Figure 5, below.

7% 11% 8% 8%

(2)

3% 4% 4% 3%

(1) Do Not Agree At All 0% 2017 (n=375)

2017 Mean = 3.71 out of 5 2015 Mean = 3.58 out of 5 2013 Mean = 3.75 out of 5 2011 Mean = 3.65 out of 5

20%

2015 (n=375)

40%

60%

2013 (n=370)

80%

100%

2011 (n=360)

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

3.3.3 Beaumont Values

Final Report Figure 6

Level of Agreement with Beaumont Values that Govern Council and Staff

Regarding Beaumont values, respondents were informed of the four (4) values that are meant to govern Council and staff behaviour throughout their work: accountability, excellence, integrity, and respect.

28%↑ 21% 25% 20%

(5) Strongly Agree

Using the same 5-point agreement scale, respondents were then asked to indicate how strongly they agreed with the four (4) values; seventy percent

42% 39% 37% 45%

(4)

of the respondents (70%, a significant increase from 61% in 2015) reported that they either somewhat (42%) or strongly (28%) agreed with Beaumont’s values (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5), while just under one-fifth (18%) neither agreed nor disagreed (3 out of 5). See Figure 6, right.

13% 8% 5%

(2)

3% 4% 2% 2%

(1) Do Not Agree At All 0% 2017 (n=375)

2017 Mean = 3.86 out of 5 2015 Mean = 3.61 out of 5 2013 Mean = 3.77 out of 5 2011 Mean = 3.76 out of 5

18% 21% 26% 27%

(3)

20% 2015 (n=375)

40%

60%

2013 (n=370)

80%

100%

2011 (n=360)

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to have agreed with Beaumont values included: ♦

Those who have lived in Beaumont for 5 years or less (76%) versus those who have lived in Beaumont for 25 years or more (62%); and

♦

Those who have had contact with a Beaumont employee within the past 12 months (75%) versus those who have not (66%).

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

3.3.4 Strategic Plan When asked to indicate their level of familiarity with Beaumont’s Strategic Plan, over two-thirds of the respondents (69%, comparable to 65% in 2015) indicated that they were either “somewhat” (60%) or “very” (9%) familiar with the Strategic Plan. Nearly one-third of the respondents (31%) indicated that they were “not at all familiar”. See Figure 7, below. Figure 7

How familiar are you with the Strategic Plan? 100%

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be very familiar with the Strategic Plan included: ♦

Males (12%) versus females (6%); and

♦

Those who have lived in Beaumont for 6 to 9 years (19%) versus those who have lived in Beaumont for 5 years or less (5%) or 15 to 24 years (6%).

Those who have lived in Beaumont for 5 years or less (44%) were significantly more likely to be not at all familiar with the Strategic Plan versus those who have lived in Beaumont for 6 to 9 years (19%), 10 to 14 years (31%), or 15 to 24 years (27%).

Respondents were next asked to indicate how important they considered each of six (6) different components of the Strategic Plan, using a scale of 1

80%

to 5, where 1 meant “not at all important” and 5 meant “very important.” At 64% 60% 59% 56%

60%

least 80% of the respondents rated the following as important (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5): Communication and Citizen Engagement (85%), People Services (85%), Fiscal and Asset Management (83%), and Economic Development 35% 34% 31% 31%

40%

20%

9% 9%

(82%). Results were comparable to 2015 survey results. See Figure 8, on the following page.

5% 6%

0% Very Familiar 2017 (n=375)

Somewhat Familiar

2015 (n=375)

2013 (n=370)

Not at all Familiar 2011 (n=360)

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Figure 8

Importance of Strategic Plan Components*

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

Communication and Citizen Engagement

85% 86% 87% 84%

People Services

85% 85% 86% 84%

Fiscal and Asset Management

83% 80% 82% 83%

Economic Development

82% 78% 78% 81%

Those who have had contact with a Beaumont employee within the past 12 months (87%) were significantly more likely to have rated fiscal and asset management as an important component of the Strategic Plan versus those who have not (79%).

67% 60% 61% 63%

Community Identity

60%

Complete Community** 0% 2017 (n=375)

Those who have lived in Beaumont for 5 years or less (65%) were significantly more likely to have rated complete community as an important component of the Strategic Plan versus those who have lived in Beaumont for 15 to 24 years (49%).

20%

2015 (n=375)

40%

60%

2013 (n=370)

80%

100%

2011 (n=360)

*Percent of respondents who rated each component as important (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5) **New to 2017 survey

See Table 6, on the following page, for a detailed breakdown of the results.

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Table 6 Thinking of the six (6) components of the Townâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Strategic Plan, how important is each component? Percent of Respondents 2017 (n=375) 2015 (n=375) Very Important

(4)

(5)

(3)

Not at all Important

(2)

(1)

Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t Know/

Mean

Not Stated

(out of 5)

2017

2015

2017

2015

2017

2015

2017

2015

2017

2015

2017

2015

2017

2015

Fiscal and Asset Management

4.34

4.27

Communication and Citizen Engagement

4.32

4.36

People Services

4.25

Economic Development

4.18

4.12

Complete Community 3

3.91

Community Identity

3.84

3.68

New to 2017 survey.

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

In addition to the various components comprising Beaumont’s Strategic Plan,

Next, respondents were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with

respondents were asked if there were any areas of focus that they felt were

Beaumont’s overall direction, as outlined by the Strategic Plan. Over half of

missing from the Plan; 24% of those who suggested additional areas of focus

the respondents (60%, a significant increase from 47% in 2015) were either

(n=54) stated that there should be a focus on public transit/transit to

somewhat (49%) or very (10%) satisfied; one-third of the respondents (29%)

Edmonton, while 17% mentioned recreation facilities. See Table 7, below.

were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. See Figure 9, below.

Table 7

Figure 9 Are there any areas of focus that are missing in the list,

How satisfied are you with Beaumont's overall direction?

that you would like to add? Base: Respondents who suggested additional areas of focus

Percent of Respondents* 2017

2015

2013

2011

(n=54)

(n=85)

(n=51)

(n=59)

Public transit/transit to Edmonton

Town facilities/recreation facilities

Senior housing/programs

Youth programs/activities

Accountability/transparency/honesty

Emergency health services

Support for the arts

Road improvements/traffic flow improvements

Other (2% of respondents or less in 2017)

Don’t Know/Not Stated

Very Satisfied

10% 10% 14% 12% 37%

Somewhat Satisfied

29% 33% 29% 23%

Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied 0% 2017 (n=375)

8% 13% 8% 7%

49%↑ 45% 54% 2017 Mean = 3.59 out of 5 2015 Mean = 3.33 out of 5 2013 Mean = 3.63 out of 5 2011 Mean = 3.66 out of 5

2% 5% 1% 3% 20% 40% 60% 2015 (n=375) 2013 (n=370)

80% 100% 2011 (n=360)

*Multiple responses

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

When asked what they considered to be the most important issue currently facing Beaumont Council, 32% of the respondents reported expansion or the

Final Report Table 8 What is the most important issue facing Beaumont today?* Percent of Respondents** 2015 2011 2013 (n=370) (n=375) (n=375) (n=360)

accommodation of Beaumont growth; 14% of the respondents mentioned

2017

economic development and/or attracting more businesses. See Table 8, right. Municipal Comparison Other municipalities investigated also reported growth and the management of growth (including property development) as important issues facing their respective councils. Additionally, respondents from other municipalities indicated that tax dollar spending and keeping taxes low was an important issue as well as maintaining or improving infrastructure.

Expansion/growth planning/management

Economic development/planning/ attracting more business

Annexation by Edmonton

High taxes/lowering taxes

Lack of schools/improve school funding/education

Policing/increasing the amount of peace officers/crime levels

Public transit/transit to Edmonton

Better public/recreation facilities/management of facilities

Other (2% of respondents or less in 2015)

Nothing/no issues

Don’t Know/Not Stated

*Prior to 2017 this question was phrased as “what is the most important issue facing Beaumont Council today?” **Multiple responses

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

3.4

Satisfaction with Programs, Services, and Facilities

In the next section of the survey, respondents were asked to report how satisfied they were with various programs, services, and facilities in Beaumont, using a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 meant “very dissatisfied” and 5

Final Report Figure 10

How satisfied are you with Beaumont's services, overall? 15% 13% 17% 11%

(5) Very Satisfied

meant “very satisfied.” Respondents who provided ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5 were said to have been “somewhat” or “very” satisfied, while those who

48% 45% 46% 55%

(4)

provided a rating of 3 out of 5 were said to be “neutral” or “neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.” First, respondents were asked to rate their level of satisfaction, overall, with

30% 30% 28% 26%

(3)

the programs, services, facilities, and infrastructure provided to residents of Beaumont. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents (62%) were either

5% 9% 7% 6%

(2)

somewhat (48%) or very (15%) satisfied, while 30% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. See Figure 10, right.

Respondents to other municipal surveys investigated provided high ratings for the overall satisfaction of City/Town services. Municipalities commonly reported overall satisfaction ratings in the low to high-eighty percent range.

2% 3% 1% 1%

(1) Very Dissatisfied

Municipal Comparison

0% 2017 (n=375)

2017 Mean = 3.69 out of 5 2015 Mean = 3.55 out of 5 2013 Mean = 3.70 out of 5

20% 2015 (n=375)

40%

60%

2013 (n=370)

80%

100%

2011 (n=360)

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Thinking now about specific programs, services, and facilities provided by Beaumont, respondents were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with

Reasons for Dissatisfaction*

each, either based on their own experiences or on their general perceptions

Respondents who were dissatisfied with curbside blue bag recycling, organics, and garbage collection services (n=74) most often reported that pick up needs to be more frequent (46%). Other reasons respondents were dissatisfied included:

of the service. As shown in Figure 11, below, nearly two-thirds of the respondents (62%, a

♦

Services are too expensive (in general) (15%);

significant increase from 42% in 2015) were either somewhat (34%) or very

♦

Too many rules/are too fussy about collection (in general) (8%);

♦

Too many restrictions on what type will be picked up (8%);

♦

Condominiums have to pay for own garbage/still taxed for service (4%);

♦

Cannot use a blue bin (4%);

♦

Service level is poor/has decreased (4%);

♦

Too much sorting/effort/too many containers/bags/pick-ups (3%);

♦

Garbage schedule is inconsistent/not followed (3%);

♦

Does not receive recycling and garbage collection services (3%); and

♦

Other (single mentions) (12%).

(28%) satisfied with curbside blue bag recycling, organics and garbage collection services. Sixteen percent (16%) of the respondents were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. Please note: In 2011, this service read as: “blue bag curbside recycling and garbage collection services.” Figure 11

Satisfaction with Recycling and Garbage Collection (5) Very Satisfied (4) (3) (2) (1) Very Dissatisfied

*Multiple responses

28%↑ 18% 23% 39% 34% 24% 26% 33% 2017 Mean = 3.64 out of 5 16% 13% 2015 Mean = 2.98 out of 5 18% 13% 2013 Mean = 3.23 out of 5 12% 2011 Mean = 3.90 out of 5 24% 17% 10% 8% 20% 16% 6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2017 (n=375) 2015 (n=375) 2013 (n=370) 2011 (n=360) ↑ indicates a significant increase from the previous survey year

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Half of the respondents (50%) were either somewhat (35%) or very (15%)

Reasons for Dissatisfaction*

satisfied with winter road maintenance, including snow removal and ice

Respondents who were dissatisfied with winter road maintenance, including snow removal and ice management (n=84) most often stated a lack of snow removal (in general) (33%). Other reasons for dissatisfaction included:

management, comparable to 45% in 2015. One-quarter of the respondents (25%) provided a neutral rating. See Figure 12, below. Figure 12

Satisfaction with Winter Road Maintenance 15% 16% 18% 12%

(5) Very Satisfied

35% 29% 34% 25%

(4)

25% 23% 21% 23%

(3)

Lack of snow removal of residential streets/side streets (27%);

♦

Poor frequency of snow removal/grading (17%);

♦

Slow response times for snow removal (12%);

♦

Sidewalks are too icy/are not cleaned (5%);

♦

Dislikes windrows/windrows are too high/block access/are not removed (5%);

♦

Poor quality of snow removal (2%); and

♦

Other (single mentions) (6%).

*Multiple responses 2017 Mean = 3.36 out of 5 2015 Mean = 3.17 out of 5 2013 Mean = 3.31 out of 5 2011 Mean = 2.92 out of 5

14% 19% 14% 21%

(2)

8% 12% 12% 18%

(1) Very Dissatisfied 0% 2017 (n=375)

♦

20%

2015 (n=375)

40%

60%

2013 (n=370)

80%

100%

2011 (n=360)

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

With regards to summer road maintenance, including paving, pothole repair,

Reasons for Dissatisfaction*

and sidewalk maintenance, two-thirds of the respondents (66%, comparable

Respondents who were dissatisfied with summer road maintenance, including paving, pothole repair, and sidewalk maintenance (n=31) most often stated that roads are in need of repair and/or road repair is not being done (23%). Other reasons for dissatisfaction included:

to 67% in 2015) were either somewhat (43%) or very (23%) satisfied. Onequarter of the respondents (25%) were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. See Figure 13, below. Figure 13

Satisfaction with Summer Road Maintenance 23% 21% 15% 14%

(5) Very Satisfied

Repairs are not done fast enough (23%);

♦

There are too many potholes/poor repairs/lack of repairs (13%);

♦

Road repairs are not done well/properly/completed (10%);

♦

Sidewalks are in poor condition/cracked/lack of curb/poor repairs (10%);

♦

Roads/sidewalks are not cleaned enough (7%); and

♦

Poor prioritization (7%).

*Multiple responses 43% 46% 41% 46%

(4) 25% 23% 26% 28%

(3) 6% 6% 11% 9%

(2)

2017 Mean = 3.79 out of 5 2015 Mean = 3.74 out of 5 2013 Mean = 3.49 out of 5 2011 Mean = 3.59 out of 5

3% 4% 6% 3%

(1) Very Dissatisfied 0% 2017 (n=375)

♦

20%

2015 (n=375)

40%

60%

2013 (n=370)

80%

100%

2011 (n=360)

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Over two-thirds of the respondents (70%, comparable to 66% in 2015) were Selected Sub-Segment Findings

either somewhat (38%) or very (32%) satisfied with RCMP services in Beaumont, while 16% provided a neutral rating. See Figure 14, below.

Those aged 55 and older (78%) were significantly more likely to have been satisfied with RCMP services than those aged 18 to 54 (61%).

Please note: In 2011, this service read as: “RCMP police services.” Figure 14

Reasons for Dissatisfaction*

Satisfaction with RCMP Services 32% 31% 40% 33%

(5) Very Satisfied

38% 36% 37% 43%

(4)

2017 Mean = 3.92 out of 5 2015 Mean = 3.87 out of 5 2013 Mean = 4.12 out of 5 2011 Mean = 4.01 out of 5

16% 21% 13% 15%

(3)

♦

Lack of police presence/patrols (23%);

♦

Lack of response to reported crime/poor response time (15%);

♦

Need more officers/are understaffed (13%);

♦

Police are not on call 24 hours/poor hours of operation (10%);

♦

Poor attitude/treatment of citizens (10%); and

♦

Too much police presence/enforcement (in general) (3%).

*Multiple responses

7% 8% 5% 5%

(2)

4% 3% 2% 2%

(1) Very Dissatisfied 0% 2017 (n=375)

Respondents who were dissatisfied with RCMP services (n=39) most often stated that police are too concerned about traffic violations (28%). Other reasons for dissatisfaction included:

20%

2015 (n=375)

40%

60%

2013 (n=370)

80%

100%

2011 (n=360)

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Nearly two-thirds (65%, comparable to 60% in 2015) of the respondents were either somewhat (40%) or very (26%) satisfied with emergency medical

Reasons for Dissatisfaction*

services in Beaumont (provided by Alberta Health Services). Nearly one-fifth

Respondents who were dissatisfied with emergency medical services (n=21)** most often stated that there is a lack of emergency medical services or a lack of full-time services (n=14). Other reasons for dissatisfaction included:

of the respondents (18%) were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. It is important to note that 12% of the respondents were unsure or did not

â&#x2122;Ś

Wait times are too long/response time is long (n=5); and

provide a rating, comparable to 14% in 2015. See Figure 15, below.

â&#x2122;Ś

Lack of a hospita in Beaumont (n=2).

*Multiple responses **Use caution interpreting results when n<30

Figure 15

Satisfaction with Emergency Medical Services 26% 26% 27% 31%

(5) Very Satisfied

40% 34% 36% 39%

(4)

4% 6% 4% 4%

(2)

1% 4% 1% 2%

(1) Very Dissatisfied

12% 14% 13% 9%

Don't Know/Not Stated 0% 2017 (n=375)

2017 Mean = 3.95 out of 5 2015 Mean = 3.84 out of 5 2013 Mean = 3.97 out of 5 2011 Mean = 4.01 out of 5

18% 17% 19% 16%

(3)

20%

2015 (n=375)

40%

60%

2013 (n=370)

80%

100%

2011 (n=360)

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Nearly four-fifths of the respondents (78%, comparable to 76% in 2015) were either somewhat (37%) or very (41%) satisfied with the fire service in

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

Beaumont, while 10% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. It is important

Those who have lived in Beaumont for 6 to 9 years (95%) were significantly more likely to have been satisfied with fire services versus those who have lived in Beaumont for 5 years or less (67%), 10 to 14 years (79%), 15 to 24 years (80%), or 25 years or more (77%).

to note that 10% of the respondents were unsure or did not provide a rating, consistent with 2015. See Figure 16, below. Figure 16

Reasons for Dissatisfaction*

Satisfaction with Fire Services (5) Very Satisfied

37% 37% 35% 45%

(4)

2017 Mean = 4.30 out of 5 2015 Mean = 4.22 out of 5 2013 Mean = 4.32 out of 5 2011 Mean = 4.24 out of 5

10% 10% 10% 10%

(3) 1% 3% 1% 1%

(2)

â&#x2122;Ś

Firefighters should be paid/not volunteer (n=2); and

â&#x2122;Ś

Response time is poor (n=1).

*Multiple responses **Use caution interpreting results when n<30

1% 1% 1% 1%

(1) Very Dissatisfied

10% 10% 10% 6%

Don't Know/Not Stated 0% 2017 (n=375)

Respondents who were dissatisfied with fire services (n=6)** most often stated that there is a lack of firefighters/full-time firefighters (n=5). Other responses included:

41% 39% 43% 36%

20%

2015 (n=375)

40%

60%

2013 (n=370)

80%

100%

2011 (n=360)

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Nearly two-thirds of the respondents (62%, comparable to 57% in 2015) were either somewhat (35%) or very (27%) satisfied with the schools in Beaumont

Reasons for Dissatisfaction*

(provided by the Province of Alberta), while 21% were neither satisfied nor

Respondents who were dissatisfied with schools (n=27) most often stated that schools are overcrowded and that there is a need for more schools/there is a lack of schools (n=9). Other responses included:

dissatisfied. It is important to note that 10% of the respondents were unsure or did not provide a rating, a decrease from 15% in 2015. See Figure 17,

♦

Schools are overcrowded/not enough space for children (n=7);

below.

♦

Poor planning of schools for the growth/lack of long term planning (n=3);

♦

Poor school zoning (in general) (n=2);

♦

Lack of variety/options for schooling/programs (n=1);

♦

Poor grade structures/lack of consistent curriculum/standards (n=1);

♦

Lack of play schools/childcare (n=1); and

♦

Had a bad experience with a teacher/poor teaching quality (n=1).

Figure 17

Satisfaction with Schools 27%↑ 20% 25% 21%

(5) Very Satisfied

(4) 21% 16% 21% 20%

(3)

2017 Mean = 3.89 out of 5 2015 Mean = 3.72 out of 5 2013 Mean = 3.76 out of 5 2011 Mean = 3.55 out of 5

6% 8% 8% 12%

(2)

1% 4% 3% 6%

(1) Very Dissatisfied

10% 15% 12% 8%

Don't Know/Not Stated 0% 2017 (n=375)

*Multiple responses

35% 37% 31% 33%

20%

2015 (n=375)

40%

60%

2013 (n=370)

80%

100%

2011 (n=360)

↑ indicates a significant increase from the previous survey year

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

With regards to water and sewer services, three-quarters of the respondents (75%, consistent with 2015) were either somewhat (45%) or very (30%)

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

satisfied, while 17% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. See Figure 18,

Those who have lived in Beaumont for 5 years or less (82%) were significantly more likely to have been satisfied with water and sewer services versus those who have lived in Beaumont for 25 years or more (67%).

below. Figure 18

Satisfaction with Water and Sewer Services

Respondents who were dissatisfied with water and sewer services (n=27)** most often stated that service costs are too high or have increased (n=15). Other reasons for dissatisfaction included:

30% 30% 34% 30%

(5) Very Satisfied

45% 45% 44% 46%

(4) 17% 14% 15% 16%

(3)

2017 Mean = 3.98 out of 5 2015 Mean = 3.95 out of 5 2013 Mean = 4.05 out of 5 2011 Mean = 3.98 out of 5

6% 7% 2% 5%

(2)

♦

Poorly planned sewer system is causing issues (e.g., flooding) (n=5);

♦

There are water shortages/water bans (especially in the summer) (n=3);

♦

Storm systems are poorly maintained (n=1);

♦

Poor water quality (n=1); and

♦

Lack of water and sewer services (n=1).

*Multiple responses **Use caution interpreting results when n<30

1% 2% 3% 2%

(1) Very Dissatisfied 0% 2017 (n=375)

Reasons for Dissatisfaction*

20%

2015 (n=375)

40%

60%

2013 (n=370)

80%

100%

2011 (n=360)

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Over one-third (37%, comparable to 42% in 2015) of the respondents were either somewhat (28%) or very (10%) satisfied with municipal enforcement

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

in Beaumont, such as animal or weed control, and traffic infractions. Nearly

Those aged 55 and older (43%) were significantly more likely to have been satisfied with municipal enforcement than those aged 18 to 54 (30%).

one-third of the respondents (32%) provided a neutral rating. See Figure 19, below. Please note: In 2011, this service read as: “Bylaw enforcement, such as animal or weed control and traffic infractions.” Figure 19

Satisfaction with Municipal Enforcement 10% 12% 17% 15%

(5) Very Satisfied

28% 30% 29% 30%

(4)

32% 29% 30% 29%

(3)

2017 Mean = 3.06 out of 5 2015 Mean = 3.16 out of 5 2013 Mean = 3.36 out of 5 2011 Mean = 3.28 out of 5

Reasons for Dissatisfaction* Respondents who were dissatisfied with municipal enforcement (n=106) most often stated that they dislike photo radar/there is too much focus on traffic infractions (26%). Other reasons for dissatisfaction included: ♦

Poor animal control/enforcement (23%);

♦

Lack of weed control enforcement and/or that the Town does not look after weeds (18%);

♦

Lack of enforcement (in general) (10%);

♦

Lack of patrolling/are not being proactive (7%);

♦

Too much focus on generating revenue/ticketing (5%)

♦

Bylaw officers ticket too much (4%);

♦

Bylaw officers have too much power/are heavy handed (3%); and

♦

Other (2% of respondents or less) (15%).

*Multiple responses

16% 14% 13% 16%

(2)

13% 12% 8% 8%

(1) Very Dissatisfied 0% 2017 (n=375)

20% 2015 (n=375)

40%

60%

2013 (n=370)

80%

100%

2011 (n=360)

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Thirty-six percent (36%, comparable to 31% in 2015) of the respondents were either somewhat (25%) or very (11%) satisfied with building permits, while

Reasons for Dissatisfaction*

27% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. It is important to note that 29%

Respondents who were dissatisfied with building permits (n=31)** most often stated that getting a building permit takes too long (36%). Other reasons for dissatisfaction included:

of the respondents were unsure or did not provide a rating. See Figure 20, below. Figure 20

Satisfaction with Building Permits 11% 7% 12% 10%

(5) Very Satisfied

(4)

25% 26% 28% 31%

(3)

27% 27% 29% 25% 4% 6% 2% 3%

(2)

There are too many pre-conditions/regulations for permits (16%);

♦

Permit staff are not qualified/knowledgeable/consistent (10%);

♦

Lack of information about permit process (10%);

♦

Should not have to get a permit for everything/for private property (7%);

♦

Building permits are too expensive (3%);

♦

Poor follow up/inspections (3%); and

♦

Have allowed the town to grow too fast/too much development (3%).

*Multiple responses 2017 Mean = 3.48 out of 5 2015 Mean = 3.44 out of 5 2013 Mean = 3.66 out of 5 2011 Mean = 3.63 out of 5

4% 2% 1% 2%

(1) Very Dissatisfied

29% 33% 28% 29%

Don't Know/Not Stated 0% 2017 (n=375)

♦

20%

2015 (n=375)

40%

60%

2013 (n=370)

80%

100%

2011 (n=360)

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

With regards to land use planning and approvals (including development

Reasons for Dissatisfaction*

permits), 33% (consistent with 33% in 2015) of the respondents were either

Respondents who were dissatisfied with land use planning and approvals (n=60) most often stated that there is poor planning/use of land (17%). Other reasons for dissatisfaction included:

somewhat (27%) or very (6%) satisfied, and over one-third (37%) were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. It is important to note that 14% of the respondents were unsure or did not provide a rating. See Figure 21, below. Figure 21

Satisfaction with Land Use Planning and Approvals 6% 6% 9% 4%

(5) Very Satisfied

27% 25% 32% 33%

(4)

(3)

2017 Mean = 3.19 out of 5 2015 Mean = 3.09 out of 5 2013 Mean = 3.40 out of 5 2011 Mean = 3.34 out of 5

40%

60%

10% 14% 8% 10%

(2)

Lack of information on planning/town does not explain themselves (12%);

♦

Too much high density housing (12%);

♦

Town is developing/growing too fast/there is too much development (10%);

♦

Council is slow at approving permits/development (8%);

♦

Not following what residents want/hard for citizens to provide input (7%);

♦

Lack of commercial/business development (7%);

♦

Lack of controls on developers/allow developers to do what they want (5%);

♦

Lack of leisure development (3%); and

♦

Other (single mentions) (7%).

*Multiple responses

6% 7% 4% 1%

(1) Very Dissatisfied

14% 15% 12% 14%

Don't Know/Not Stated 0% 2017 (n=375)

37% 33% 34% 38%

♦

20%

2015 (n=375)

2013 (n=370)

80%

100%

2011 (n=360)

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Forty-three percent (43%, comparable to 40% in 2015) of the respondents were either somewhat (30%) or very (13%) satisfied with Beaumont in terms

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

of attracting and supporting local businesses. One-third of the respondents

Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to have been satisfied with attracting and supporting local business included:

(33%) provided a neutral rating. See Figure 22, below.

♦

Those who have lived in Beaumont for 6 to 9 years (55%) versus those who have lived in Beaumont for 5 years or less (35%) or 15 to 24 years (37%); and

♦

Those aged 55 or older (48%) versus those aged 18 to 54 (36%).

Figure 22

Satisfaction with Attracting and Supporting Local Business 13% 9% 12% 9%

(5) Very Satisfied

Reasons for Dissatisfaction*

(4)

30% 31% 39% 35%

(3)

33% 35% 34% 36% 14% 14% 10% 13%

(2)

Respondents who were dissatisfied with attracting and supporting local business (n=69) most often stated that Beaumont lacks businesses, overall, and has done little to attract businesses (32%). Other responses included: 2017 Mean = 3.34 out of 5 2015 Mean = 3.22 out of 5 2013 Mean = 3.51 out of 5 2011 Mean = 3.33 out of 5

♦

Beaumont rules impede progress/make it hard on businesses/stops business/little attractions (29%);

♦

Rent in town is too high for businesses/high operation costs (12%);

♦

Lack of diversity/too many of the same types of business (9%);

♦

Businesses have not been able to sustain themselves/retain business (7%);

5% 7% 2% 5%

♦

The French theme restricts businesses (6%);

(1) Very Dissatisfied

♦

Don't Know/Not Stated

6% 5% 4% 3%

People shop outside of Beaumont/are too close to other communities (3%);

♦

Need to attract businesses to widen the tax base (3%);

♦

Lack of support for local/small business (in general) (3%); and

♦

Town is trying to keep the small town feel instead (1%);

2017 (n=375)

20%

2015 (n=375)

40%

60%

2013 (n=370)

80%

100%

*Multiple responses

2011 (n=360)

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Over three-quarters of the respondents (77%, a significant increase from 67% in 2015) were either somewhat (45%) or very (32%) satisfied with community

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

events, while 18% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. See Figure 23,

Those who have lived in Beaumont for 6 to 9 years (85%), or 10 to 14 years (86%) were significantly more likely to have been satisfied with community events and programming versus those who have lived in Beaumont for 5 years or less (66%).

below. Please note: In 2015, this question included recreation and leisure learning programs. For the 2017 survey, the recreation and leisure learning programs has been separated.

Reasons for Dissatisfaction* Respondents who were dissatisfied with community events and programming (n=9)** most often stated that there are not enough community events (n=3). Other reasons for dissatisfaction included:

Figure 23

Satisfaction with Community Events 32% ↑ 24% 30% 25%

(5) Very Satisfied

45% 44% 40% 48%

(4) 18% 24% 22% 18%

(3)

(2)

2% 3% 4% 4%

(1) Very Dissatisfied

1% <1% 1% 1% 0%

20%

♦

Poor advertising of community events and programming (n=1);

♦

Lack of variety available/do not offer anything different (n=1);

♦

Focus too much on children/not enough for adults (n=1);

♦

Lack of facilities/space for events/programs (n=1); and

♦

Dislikes music festivals are in town/near residential (n=1).

*Multiple responses **Use caution interpreting results when n<30

2017 Mean = 4.08 out of 5 2015 Mean = 3.93 out of 5 2013 Mean = 3.99 out of 5 2011 Mean = 3.96 out of 5

40%

60%

80%

100%

2017 (n=375) 2015 (n=375) 2013 (n=370) 2011 (n=360) ↑ indicates a significant increase from the previous survey year

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

New to the 2017 survey, respondents were asked specifically about the

Reasons for Dissatisfaction*

recreation and leisure learning programs. Nearly two-thirds of the

Respondents who were dissatisfied with recreation and leisure learning programs (n=27)** most often stated that there is a lack of/not enough recreation programs/program variety (in general) (n=9). Other reasons for dissatisfaction included:

respondents (62%) were either somewhat (40%) or very (22%) satisfied with recreation and leisure learning programs, while 25% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. See Figure 24, below. Figure 24

Satisfaction with Recreation and Leisure Learning Programs (5) Very Satisfied

22%

(4)

40% 2017 Mean = 3.79 out of 5

(3)

♦

Lack of recreation facilities/facilities are too small (n=6);

♦

Admission is too expensive/costly (n=6);

♦

Lack of programs for seniors (n=2);

♦

Lack of space/room in programs/programs are full (n=2);

♦

Need indoor track (n=1);

♦

Lack of green spaces/parks (n=1);

♦

Lack of awareness/advertising of recreational programs (n=1);

♦

Lack of facility cleanliness/maintenance (n=1); and

♦

Need more skating rinks (n=1).

*Multiple responses **Use caution interpreting results when n<30

25%

(2)

(1) Very Dissatisfied

2% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

n=375

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Half of the respondents (50%) were either somewhat (36%) or very (15%) satisfied with Beaumont Family & Community Support Services (FCSS), while

Reasons for Dissatisfaction*

just over one-fifth (21%) were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, comparable

Respondents who were dissatisfied with Family and Community Support Services (n=19)** most often stated there is a lack of social services available (n=11). Other reasons for dissatisfaction included:

to 2015 survey results. It is important to note that another 24% of the respondents were unsure or did not provide a rating. See Figure 25, below.

♦

Lack of advertising of services/unaware of services available (n=3);

Please note: In 2015, this question included the youth centre. For the 2017

♦

Lack of services for seniors/discontinued a program for seniors (n=1);

♦

Need access to mental health crisis team/need a mental health service (n=1); and

♦

Too much drug activity among the youth (n=1).

survey, the youth centre has been separated. Figure 25

*Multiple responses **Use caution interpreting results when n<30

Satisfaction with FCSS 15% 17% 16% 14%

(5) Very Satisfied

36% 36% 37% 36%

(4)

5% 3% 2% 3%

(2)

1% 2% 1% 1%

(1) Very Dissatisfied

24% 24% 22% 21%

Don't Know/Not Stated 0% 2017 (n=375)

2017 Mean = 3.77 out of 5 2015 Mean = 3.81 out of 5 2013 Mean = 3.82 out of 5 2011 Mean = 3.77 out of 5

21% 19% 22% 24%

(3)

20%

2015 (n=375)

40%

60%

2013 (n=370)

80%

100%

2011 (n=360)

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

New to the 2017 survey, residents were asked about their satisfaction with the Chantal Berube Youth Centre. Forty-three percent (43%) of the

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

respondents were either somewhat (29%) or very (15%) satisfied with the

Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to have been satisfied with the Chantal Berube Youth Centre included:

Chantal Berube Youth Centre. Another 20% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. One-third of the respondents (33%) were unsure or did not provide a rating. See Figure 26, below. Figure 26

♦

Females (48%) versus males (38%);

♦

Those who have lived in Beaumont for 10 to 14 years (48%), 15 to 24 years (46%), or 25 years or more (55%) versus those who have lived in Beaumont for 5 years or less (28%); and

♦

Those who have had contact with Beaumont employees within the past 12 months (51%) versus those who have not (37%).

Satisfaction with Chantal Berube Youth Centre (5) Very Satisfied

15%

(4)

Reasons for Dissatisfaction* Respondents who were dissatisfied with the Chantal Berube Youth Centre (n=14)** most often stated that they are concerned about youth smoking/drug use/vandalism around facility (n=7). Other reasons for dissatisfaction included:

29%

(3)

20%

(2)

(1) Very Dissatisfied

2017 Mean = 3.79 out of 5

♦

Lack of awareness/information (n=2);

♦

Facility is too small (n=1);

♦

Lack of funding for programs/facility (n=1); and

♦

Facility is not needed (n=1).

*Multiple responses **Use caution interpreting results when n<30

Don't Know/Not Stated

33% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

n=375

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Thirty-two percent (32%) of the respondents were either somewhat (23%) or very (9%) satisfied with child care programs, comparable to 2015 results. Another 22% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. More than one-third of the respondents (39%) were unsure or did not provide a rating, comparable to 38% in 2015. See Figure 27, below. Figure 27

Satisfaction with Child Care Programs

♦

Wait lists to get into child care are long (n=4);

♦

Town should not be involved with child care business (n=3); and

♦

Child care is too expensive (n=1).

23% 20% 17% 20%

(4)

22% 24% 26% 25%

(3) 3% 6% 9% 10%

(2)

2017 Mean = 3.51 out of 5 2015 Mean = 3.40 out of 5 2013 Mean = 3.28 out of 5 2011 Mean = 3.24 out of 5

4% 4% 4% 5%

(1) Very Dissatisfied

39% 38% 35% 33%

Don't Know/Not Stated 0% 2017 (n=375)

Respondents who were dissatisfied with child care programs (n=24)** most often stated that there are is a lack of spaces and/or difficult to get in (n=18). Other reasons for dissatisfaction included:

*Multiple responses **Use caution interpreting results when n<30

9% 10% 9% 8%

(5) Very Satisfied

Reasons for Dissatisfaction*

20%

2015 (n=375)

40%

60%

2013 (n=370)

80%

100%

2011 (n=360)

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Over four-fifths of the respondents (82%, comparable to 77% in 2015) were Selected Sub-Segment Findings

either somewhat (34%) or very (48%) satisfied with library services, while 9%

Those who have lived in Beaumont for 10 to 14 years (87%) were significantly more likely to have been satisfied with library services versus those who have lived in Beaumont for 5 years or less (74%).

were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. See Figure 28, below. Figure 28

Satisfaction with Library Services Respondents who were dissatisfied with library services (n=5)** most often stated that the library is too small (n=2). Other reasons for dissatisfaction included:

34% 33% 37% 38%

(4) 9% 9% 8% 7%

(3) (2)

1% 2% 1% 3%

(1) Very Dissatisfied

<1% 1% 1% 0%

2017 Mean = 4.40 out of 5 2015 Mean = 4.33 out of 5 2013 Mean = 4.36 out of 5 2011 Mean = 4.32 out of 5

â&#x2122;Ś

Has poor hours of operation (e.g., closed on Sundays, close early) (n=1); and

â&#x2122;Ś

Lack of selection and/or in need of a larger collection (n=1).

*Multiple responses **Use caution interpreting results when n<30

8% 12% 11% 7%

Don't Know/Not Stated 0% 2017 (n=375)

Reasons for Dissatisfaction*

48% 44% 43% 44%

(5) Very Satisfied

20%

2015 (n=375)

40%

60%

2013 (n=370)

80%

100%

2011 (n=360)

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

3.5

Satisfaction with Town Infrastructure

With regards to specific aspects of Beaumont’s infrastructure, respondents

Final Report Figure 29

Satisfaction with the Aqua-Fit Centre

were asked to continue rating their level of satisfaction with each aspect, using a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 meant “very dissatisfied” and 5 meant “very

31% 30% 37% 37%

(5) Very Satisfied

satisfied.” With regards to the Aqua-Fit Centre, over two-thirds of the respondents

38% 38% 36% 33%

(4)

(70%) were either somewhat (38%) or very (31%) satisfied, while 19% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, comparable to 2015 survey results. See Figure 29, right. Reasons for Dissatisfaction* Respondents who were dissatisfied with the Aqua-Fit Centre (n=28)** most often stated that the pool is too small (e.g., not big enough for swimming in lanes)/big enough for needs (n=12). Other responses included: ♦

Facility is too expensive (n=5);

♦

Lack of activities for young children (n=3);

♦

Facility was poorly built (n=3);

♦

Was built even though it was voted not to/was not in favour of it (n=2);

♦

Pool is too basic (does not have waterslide, diving boards) (n=2);

♦

Facility is too narrow of usages/is not a full recreation centre (n=2);

♦

Is not used enough/underutilized (n=1) and;

♦

Poor/inconvenient hours of operation (n=1).

6% 5% 4% 4%

(2)

1% 3% 2% 3%

(1) Very Dissatisfied

4% 9% 5% 7%

Don't Know/Not Stated 0% 2017 (n=375)

2017 Mean = 3.96 out of 5 2015 Mean = 3.95 out of 5 2013 Mean = 4.07 out of 5 2011 Mean = 4.03 out of 5

19% 16% 15% 15%

(3)

20%

2015 (n=375)

40%

60%

2013 (n=370)

80%

100%

2011 (n=360)

*Multiple responses **Use caution interpreting results when n<30

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Sixty-two percent (62%) of the respondents were either somewhat (44%) or very (18%) satisfied with the Ken Nichol Regional Recreation Centre,

Reasons for Dissatisfaction*

comparable to 2015 survey results. Nearly one-quarter of the respondents

Respondents who were dissatisfied with the Ken Nichol Regional Recreation Centre (n=25)** most often stated that the facility is too small/needs bigger/more facilities (n=11). Other responses included:

(23%) were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. See Figure 30, below. Figure 30

Satisfaction with the Ken Nichol Regional Recreation Centre 18%↓ 24% 22% 27%

(5) Very Satisfied

Facility needs an upgrade/is outdated/poorly maintained (n=10);

♦

Does not use the facility (n=2);

♦

Facility is too restrictive on community use (n=1);

♦

Poor shower facilities (n=1); and

♦

Lack of public ice time (n=1).

*Multiple responses **Use caution interpreting results when n<30 44% 37% 39% 40%

(4) 23% 21% 22% 21%

(3)

2017 Mean = 3.80 out of 5 2015 Mean = 3.91 out of 5 2013 Mean = 3.85 out of 5 2011 Mean = 3.98 out of 5

6% 4% 5% 3%

(2)

1% 1% 1% 1%

(1) Very Dissatisfied

8% 14% 11% 8%

Don't Know/Not Stated 0% 2017 (n=375)

♦

20%

2015 (n=375)

40%

60%

2013 (n=370)

80%

100%

2011 (n=360)

↓ indicates a significant decrease from the previous survey year

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Eighty-one percent (81%) of the respondents were either somewhat (43%) or very (38%) satisfied with Beaumont’s parks (e.g., outdoor rinks, the water

Reasons for Dissatisfaction*

play park, the skate park, etc.), while 13% were neither satisfied nor

Respondents who were dissatisfied with parks (n=13)** most often stated that parks need more green spaces/parks are losing too many green spaces (n=6). Other responses included:

dissatisfied, comparable to 2015 survey results. See Figure 31, below. Figure 31

Satisfaction with Parks 38% 37% 40% 39%

(5) Very Satisfied

♦

Skateboard park is unattractive (n=2);

♦

Need more playgrounds for young children (n=1); and

♦

Location of parks (n=1).

*Multiple responses **Use caution interpreting results when n<30

2017 Mean = 4.17 out of 5 2015 Mean = 4.14 out of 5 2013 Mean = 4.22 out of 5 2011 Mean = 4.19 out of 5

13% 15% 13% 13%

(3) 2% 3% 2% 3%

(2)

1% 1% 0% 0% 0%

2017 (n=375)

Parks need maintenance/need more funding for maintenance (n=4);

43% 43% 43% 43%

(4)

(1) Very Dissatisfied

♦

20%

2015 (n=375)

40%

60%

2013 (n=370)

80%

100%

2011 (n=360)

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Over four-fifths of the respondents (81%) were either somewhat (37%) or very (44%) satisfied with Beaumont’s trails, while 12% provided a neutral Reasons for Dissatisfaction*

rating; results are comparable to 2015 survey results. See Figure 32, below.

Respondents who were dissatisfied with trails (n=17)** most often stated that there is an overall lack of trails and that the Town needs more trails (n=5). Other responses included:

Figure 32

Satisfaction with Trails 44% 40% 38% 36%

(5) Very Satisfied

(4) 12% 13% 17% 16%

(3)

Lack of snow removal on trails/they are not maintained year-round (n=5);

♦

Trails do not connect to each other/should build continuous trails (n=4);

♦

Lack of natural spaces (n=2);

♦

Hard to access trails from some areas (n=1); and

♦

Lack of paved trails (n=1).

*Multiple responses **Use caution interpreting results when n<30

4% 3% 5% 4%

(2)

1% <1% 1% 1%

(1) Very Dissatisfied

0% 2017 (n=375)

37% 40% 37% 39% 2017 Mean = 4.22 out of 5 2015 Mean = 4.21 out of 5 2013 Mean = 4.09 out of 5 2011 Mean = 4.09 out of 5

♦

20% 2015 (n=375)

40%

60%

2013 (n=370)

80%

100%

2011 (n=360)

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

New to the 2017 survey, respondents were asked about the new Beaumont Community Centre (CCBCC). Fifty-seven percent (57%) of the respondents

Reasons for Dissatisfaction*

were either somewhat (31%) or very (27%) satisfied with the new Beaumont

Respondents who were dissatisfied with the new Beaumont Community Centre (CCBCC) (n=16)** most often stated that the facility is a waste of tax dollars (n=4). Other responses included:

Community Centre (CCBCC). One-fifth of the respondents (20%) were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. It is important to note that 19% of the respondents

♦

Facility is poorly built/designed (n=3);

were unsure or did not provide a rating. See Figure 33, below.

♦

Lack of child care services (n=2);

♦

Facility is too small (n=1);

♦

Lack of awareness/information (n=1);

♦

Too costly/expensive (n=1);

♦

Facility is in poor/inconvenient location (n=1);

♦

Facility was built by outside source/contractor (n=1);

♦

Lack of water fountains (n=1); and

♦

Lack of parking availability (n=1).

Figure 33

Satisfaction with the new Beaumont Community Centre (CCBCC) (5) Very Satisfied

27%

(4)

31%

(3)

2017 Mean = 3.96 out of 5

20%

(2)

(1) Very Dissatisfied

Don't Know/Not Stated

*Multiple responses **Use caution interpreting results when n<30

19% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

n=375

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Over two-thirds of the respondents (71%) were either somewhat (45%) or very (25%) satisfied with roads and sidewalks, including land drainage. Just

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

under one-quarter (23%) provided a neutral rating. Results are comparable

Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to have been satisfied with roads and sidewalks included:

to 2015 survey results. See Figure 34, below.

♦

Those who have lived in Beaumont for 5 years or less (75%) versus those who have lived in Beaumont for 25 years or more (61%); and

♦

Those who have not had contact with a Beaumont employee within the past 12 months (76%) versus those who have (66%).

Figure 34

Satisfaction with Roads and Sidewalks 25% 20% 20% 19%

(5) Very Satisfied

Reasons for Dissatisfaction*

(4) 23% 22% 24% 21%

(3)

2017 Mean = 3.89 out of 5 2015 Mean = 3.79 out of 5 2013 Mean = 3.79 out of 5 2011 Mean = 3.83 out of 5

5% 5% 6% 4%

(2)

♦

Poor quality of roads/roads are in poor shape/have potholes (n=4);

♦

Sidewalks are poorly built/wear out quickly/need maintenance (n=2); and

♦

Lack of activity/response to work orders/complaints (n=1).

*Multiple responses **Use caution interpreting results when n<30

1% 3% 2% 2%

(1) Very Dissatisfied 0% 2017 (n=375)

Respondents who were dissatisfied with roads and sidewalks (n=24)** most often stated that there is a lack of drainage (i.e., there is a lot of flooding) and/or that drainage is poor (n=14). Other responses included:

45% 49% 48% 53%

20%

2015 (n=375)

40%

60%

2013 (n=370)

80%

100%

2011 (n=360)

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

With regards to the water and sewer system in Beaumont, 84% of the respondents were either somewhat (46%) or very (38%) satisfied, while 14% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, comparable to 2015 survey results. See Figure 35, below.

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Those who have lived in Beaumont for 10 to 14 years (89%) or 15 to 24 years (90%) were significantly more likely to have been satisfied with the water and sewer system versus those who have lived in Beaumont for 25 years or more (75%).

Figure 35 Reasons for Dissatisfaction*

Satisfaction with the Water and Sewer System 38% 40% 38% 34%

(5) Very Satisfied

46% 43% 45% 50%

(4) 14% 14% 14% 14%

(3)

(2)

1% 2% 1% 1%

(1) Very Dissatisfied

1% 0% <1% 1% 0%

2017 (n=375)

Respondents who were dissatisfied with the water and sewer system (n=7)** most often stated that their property is often flooded (n=4). Other responses included:

20% 2015 (n=375)

â&#x2122;Ś

Charge too much for water/sewer services (n=2); and

â&#x2122;Ś

Dislikes water shortages/shortages in the summer (n=1).

*Multiple responses **Use caution interpreting results when n<30

2017 Mean = 4.19 out of 5 2015 Mean = 4.21 out of 5 2013 Mean = 4.21 out of 5 2011 Mean = 4.15 out of 5

40%

60%

2013 (n=370)

80%

100%

2011 (n=360)

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

3.6

Overall Importance and Satisfaction Ratings

Final Report

Services in the upper left quadrant are of higher than average importance,

In conducting satisfaction and importance assessments, programs, services,

but lower than average satisfaction, or where ratings of overall importance

facilities, or types of infrastructure with the lowest levels of satisfaction

are considerably greater than overall satisfaction ratings. These services are

ratings or lowest importance ratings may not necessarily be the areas where

viewed as primary areas of improvement. As shown, the following services

improvement is most desired or needed. By mapping the following areas,

fall within this quadrant:

priority areas in terms of Beaumont service improvements are identified: ♦ 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 were questioned as to the level of importance they placed on each of the twenty-five (25) Beaumont services and types of infrastructure investigated, using a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 meant “not at all important” and

♦ (1) Curbside blue bag recycling, organics, and garbage collection services;

♦ (2) Winter road maintenance, including snow removal and ice management; ♦ (3) Summer road maintenance, including paving, pothole repair, and sidewalk maintenance; and ♦ (12) Attracting and supporting local businesses. Improvements to these services would do the most to increase residents’ overall satisfaction with the services provided by Beaumont.

5 meant “very important.” Respondents’ importance and satisfaction ratings were plotted on grids whereby the axes intercepted at the average importance rating (mean = 4.20) and the average satisfaction rating (mean = 3.82) across services measured. Figure 36, on page 53, maps the average importance and satisfaction ratings for each program, service, or facility measured.

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Beaumont services which fall into the lower left quadrant are considered of lower than average importance and lower than average satisfaction. These services include: ♦

(10) Building permits;

Final Report

♦ (13) Community events; ♦ (18) Library services; ♦ (17) S&D Aqua-Fit Centre; and ♦ (23) The new Beaumont Community Centre (CCBCC).

♦ (11) Land use planning and approvals (including development permits);

When assessing City services in the upper right quadrant, the following areas

♦ (14) Recreation and leisure learning programs;

for which respondents reported higher than average importance and higher

♦ (15) Social Services (Family and Community Support Services); ♦ (16) Chantal Berube Youth Centre; ♦ (17) Child care programs; and ♦ (20) Ken Nichol Recreation Centre.

were determined to be key strengths or successes. In other words, services than average satisfaction included: ♦ (4) RCMP services; ♦ (5) Emergency medical (provided by Alberta Health Services); ♦ (6) Fire services;

It is important to note that municipal enforcement, such as animal or weed

♦ (7) Schools (provided by the Province of Alberta);

control and traffic infractions had a lower than average satisfaction rating

♦ (8) Water and sewer services;

(3.06 out of 5) but had an importance rating equal to the mean rating (4.20

♦ (21) Parks (outdoor rinks, water play park, skate park, etc.);

out of 5). Therefore, efforts should be made to increase this service’s mean

♦ (22) Trails;

satisfactory rating so that it may become a strength instead of an area that

♦ (24) Roads, sidewalks, including land drainage; and

requires improvement. 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 secondary areas of improvement. Services which fall into the lower right quadrant are currently viewed as having lower than average importance and higher than average satisfaction.

♦ (25) Water and sewer systems (infrastructure). Maintaining a high level of satisfaction with these services is important, as these areas are viewed as highly important or critical to citizens. It will be important to monitor the satisfaction of these services to ensure that resident satisfaction is maintained or increased, and that these services continue to be perceived as strengths.

In other words, while respondents are generally satisfied with these services, the importance placed on these services is lower in comparison to other services evaluated. These services include: 52

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Figure 36

1. Curbside blue bag recycling, organics, and garbage collection services

Importance versus Satisfaction Town Programs, Services and Facilities 5.0

High-Priority Areas/Areas of Improvement

2 12

Importance

4.5 9 11

4.0

Strengths/Areas

4 5 24 8 1 37 15 19 14 20

10 17 16

3.5

2. Winter road maintenance, including snow removal and ice management

6 of Success

4. RCMP services

25 21 22 13

3. Summer road maintenance, including paving, pothole repair, and sidewalk maintenance 5. Emergency medical (provided by Alberta Health Services) 6. Fire service 7. Schools (provided by the Province of Alberta)

8. Water and sewer services

9. Municipal enforcement, such as animal or weed control and traffic infractions 10. Building permits 11. Land use planning and approvals (including development permits)

3.0

12. Attracting and supporting local business

Secondary Areas of Improvement

2.5 2.5

3.0

Secondary Strengths

3.5

4.0 Satisfaction

4.5

13. Community events 5.0

Note: Axes set at 3.82 mean satisfaction rating and 4.20 mean importance rating Scale: 1=”not at all important”/”very dissatisfied”; 5=”very important/satisfied”

14. Recreation and leisure learning programs 15. Social services (Family & Community Support Services) 16. Chantal Berube Youth Centre 17. Child care programs 18. Library services

Municipal Comparison In the examination of other municipalities, the following areas were frequently identified as service strengths: garbage and/or recycling collection, RCMP services, and fire and ambulance services (including emergency services). Road improvement and/or year-round road maintenance was frequently highlighted as the primary area of concern for other municipalities investigated.

Table 9, on the following page, details the mean satisfaction and importance

19. Aqua-Fit Centre 20. Ken Nichol Recreation Centre 21. Parks (outdoor rinks, water play park, skate park, etc.) 22. Trails 23. The new Beaumont Community Centre (CCBCC) 24. Roads and sidewalks, including land drainage 25. Water and sewer systems (infrastructure)

ratings for each program, service, facility, and type of infrastructure rated. 53

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Table 9 Average Satisfaction and Importance Ratings* Mean Rating (out of 5) Satisfaction

Importance

1. Curbside blue bag recycling, organics, and garbage collection services

3.64

4.34

2. Winter road maintenance, including snow removal and ice management

3.36

4.52

3. Summer road maintenance, including paving, pothole repair, and sidewalk maintenance

3.79

4.28

4. RCMP services

3.92

4.65

5. Emergency medical (provided by Alberta Health Services)

3.95

4.69

6. Fire service

4.30

4.77

7. Schools (provided by the Province of Alberta)

3.89

4.44

8. Water and sewer services

3.98

4.50

9. Municipal enforcement, such as animal or weed control and traffic infractions

3.06

4.20

10. Building permits

3.48

3.61

11. Land use planning and approvals (including development permits)

3.19

4.02

12. Attracting and supporting local business

3.34

4.32

13. Community events

4.08

4.03

14. Recreation and leisure learning programs

3.79

4.14

15. Social services (Family & Community Support Services)

3.77

4.16

16. Chantal Berube Youth Centre

3.79

3.56

17. Child care programs

3.51

3.54

18. Library services

4.40

4.02

19. Aqua-Fit Centre

3.96

4.08

20. Ken Nichol Recreation Centre

3.80

3.89

21. Parks (outdoor rinks, water play park, skate park, etc.)

4.17

4.31

22. Trails

4.22

4.27

23. The new Beaumont Community Centre (CCBCC)

3.96

3.74

24. Roads and sidewalks, including land drainage

3.89

4.48

25. Water and sewer systems (infrastructure)

4.19

4.54

Mean

3.82

4.20

*Scale: 1 means “not at all important”/”very dissatisfied”; 5 means “very important”/”very satisfied

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report Figure 37

3.7

Contact with Beaumont Employees

In the next section of the survey, respondents were asked about their interaction with employees of Beaumont. First, respondents were asked if they could recall being in contact with any employees for Beaumont within the past 12 months, whether by phone, in-person, by mail, e-mail, or through the internet. Less than half of the respondents (48%, comparable to 55% in 2015) indicated that they had been in contact with an employee over the past year, while 51% had not. See Figure 37, right.

100%

Have you been in contact with any employees who work for Beaumont?

80% 60%

48%

55% 55%

59%

51%

45% 45%

40%

41%

20% 0% Yes 2017 (n=375)

2015 (n=375)

No 2013 (n=370)

2011 (n=360)

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Next, respondents who reported that they had had contact with a Beaumont employee (n=180) were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with the service provided by the employee with whom they most recently had contact. Over four-fifths of the respondents (82%, a significant increase from 73% in 2015) were either somewhat (21%) or very (61%, a significant increase from 45% in 2015) satisfied with the service they received (ratings of 4 or 5 out of

Final Report Figure 38

How satisfied were you with the service provided by the last Beaumont employee with whom you had contact? 45%

(5) Very Satisfied 34%

5), while 8% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (3 out of 5). See Figure 38, right.

21% 28% 21%

(4)

55%

50%

8% 7% 8% 14%

(3)

4% 10% 8% 1%

(2)

6% 9% 7% 1%

(1) Very Dissatisfied 0% 2017 (n=180)

61%â&#x2020;&#x2018;

20%

2015 (n=205)

40%

60%

2013 (n=202)

80%

100%

2011 (n=212)

Base: Respondents who have had contact with a Beaumont employee in the past 12 months â&#x2020;&#x2018; indicates a significant increase from previous survey year

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Next, respondents who had had contact with a Beaumont employee (n=180) were next asked to rate their level of agreement with various statements concerning the employee with whom they last had contact, using a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 meant “strongly disagree” and 5 meant “strongly agree.” At least 80% of the respondents each agreed (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5) with all five (5) statements. See Figure 39, right.

Final Report Figure 39

To what extent do you agree that the employee with whom you last had contact...?* Was courteous

92% 87% 87% 90%

Was knowledgeable about the services they provide

88%↑ 80% 82% 80%

Showed interest in your needs

87%↑ 77% 79% 80% 87% 81% 83% 81%

Was accessible

84% 77% 74% 79%

Was responsive to your needs 0% 2017 (n=180)

20%

2015 (n=205)

40%

60%

2013 (n=202)

80%

100%

2011 (n=212)

*Percent of respondents who agreed with each statement (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5) ↑ indicates a significant increase from previous survey year Base: Respondents who have had contact with a Beaumont employee within the past 12 months

See Table 10, on the following page, for a detailed breakdown of the results.

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Table 10 To what extent do you agree or disagree that the Beaumont employee with whom you last had contactâ&#x20AC;Ś? Percent of Respondents 2017 (n=200) Base: Respondents who have been in contact with an employee Beaumont within the past 12 months

2015 (n=205) Strongly Agree (5)

Somewhat Agree

Neither Agree Nor Disagree

Somewhat Disagree

(4)

(3)

(2)

Strongly Disagree

Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t Know/

(1)

Not Stated

2017

2015

2017

2015

2017

2015

2017

2015

2017

2015

2017

2015

Was courteous

Was accessible

Was responsive to your needs

Showed interest in your needs

Was knowledgeable about the services they provide

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

3.8

Final Report

Respondents who reported that they own their residence (n=351) were then

Property Taxes

asked to indicate which of three (3) tax strategies they would support for

As shown in Figure 40, below, the vast majority of the respondents (94%) own

Beaumont, thinking about Beaumont and its services over the next five (5)

their residence in Beaumont, while 6% rent, similar to 2015 survey results.

years. As shown in Figure 41, below, more than half of the respondents (51%)

Figure 40

supported a cost-of-living tax increase to maintain the current level of service

Do you own or rent your home? 100%

94%94%95%95%

from Beaumont, comparable to 50% in 2015. Twenty-one percent (21%, comparable to 19% in 2015) supported a tax increase, above inflation, to enhance or increase the level of service, while 15% supported a tax decrease

80%

to reduce the level of service.

60%

Figure 41

40%

Which tax strategy would you most likely support?

20%

6% 5% 4% 4%

0% Own 2017 (n=375)

Rent 2015 (n=375) 2013 (n=370)

1% 1% 1% 1% Don't Know 2011 (n=360)

51% 50% 52% 60%

A cost-of-living tax increase 21% 19% 26% 20%

A tax increase, above inflation

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Those who have been in contact with a Beaumont employee within the past 12 months (97%) were significantly more likely to own their residence versus those who have not (91%).

15% 9% 12% 10%

A tax decrease

It depends

6% 8% 0%

2017 (n=351)

14%

20%

2015 (n=352)

40%

60%

2013 (n=352)

80%

100%

2011 (n=343)

Base: Respondents who own their residence

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Males (20%) were significantly more likely to support a tax decrease versus females (10%).

Other Factors/Tax Strategies* Respondents who reported that their support for a tax strategy depends on additional factors or who provided ‘other’ responses (n=24)** most often indicated that Beaumont should maintain taxes and maintain the current levels of service (n=11). Other responses included: ♦

Improve budgeting/allocate current taxes better (n=4);

♦

Increase business tax levels and decrease citizen tax levels (n=4);

♦

Maintain current tax levels and increase service levels (n=2);

♦

Implement a tax decrease to maintain the current level of service (n=2);

♦

Depends where money goes/should only go to needed services (1%).

*Multiple responses **Use caution interpreting results when n<30

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

3.9

Communications

Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement, using a 1 to 5 scale where 1 meant “do not agree at all” and 5 meant “strongly agree,” that Beaumont’s communication to residents provides them with a general awareness and understanding of priorities, projects, and initiatives undertaken by Beaumont. As shown in Figure 42, right, 54% of the respondents (comparable to 49% in 2015) either somewhat (36%) or strongly (18%) agreed, while 30% neither agreed nor disagreed. Selected Sub-Segment Findings Those who have had contact with a Beaumont employee within the past 12 months (61%) were significantly more likely to have agreed that the Town’s communications provides them with a general awareness and understanding of priorities, projects, and initiatives versus those who have not (48%).

Reasons for Dissatisfaction* Respondents who disagreed that Beaumont communications provide residents with a general awareness and understanding of priorities, projects, and initiatives undertaken by the Beaumont (n=52) most often stated that they were unaware of Beaumont plans or that they do not get any information or communication (62%). Other reasons provided included: ♦ Decisions only get communicated after they are decided on (12%); ♦ The only place one can find information is in the newspaper (8%); ♦ Decisions are made without consultation/input/Beaumont does not listen to input (6%); ♦ Receives little information about Beaumont programs (4%); ♦ Mayor/Council are not accessible to the public/don’t communicate (4%); and ♦ Beaumont’s website is poor/disorganized (2%). *Multiple responses

Final Report Figure 42

Level of Agreement that Beaumont communications provide residents with a general awareness and understanding of priorities and projects 18% 15% 19% 15%

(5) Strongly Agree

36% 34% 42% 41%

(4)

30% 33% 2017 Mean = 3.54 out of 5 26% 33% 2015 Mean = 3.40 out of 5

(3) (2)

9% 9% 7% 8%

(1) Do Not Agree At All

5% 8% 4% 4% 0%

20%

2013 Mean = 3.67 out of 5

40%

60%

2017 (n=375)

80%

100%

2015 (n=375)

When asked to indicate how effective various communication methods would be, in terms of getting information to them about Beaumont programs, services, and facilities, at least 80% of the respondents rated the following as either “somewhat” or “very” effective: ♦ Beaumont News (89%); ♦ Conversations with others (85%); and ♦ Beaumont website (81%). See Figure 43, on the following page.

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Figure 43

Effectiveness of Communication Methods*

89% 89%

Beaumont News

94% 93%

85%↑ 88% 82% 81%↑ 83%

78%

Conversations with others 73% 71%

Beaumont website

79% 81% 86% 84%

Roadside signage 75% 75% 75%

Beaumont Communiqué

82%

71% 68% 73% 74% 67%

Brochures New electronic/digital sign*** Beaumont social media

28% 34%

Attending Council meetings

59% ↑

47% 44%

41%

50%↑ 52%

23% 18% 26%

93.1 FM The One radio station** 0%

20% 2017 (n=375) 2015 (n=375) *Percent of respondents who rated each method as "somewhat" or "very" effective **New to 2013 questionnaire ***New to the 2017 questionnaire ↑ indicates a significant increase from previous survey year

40% 2013 (n=370)

For a detailed breakdown of the results, please refer to Table 11, on the following page.

60% 2011 (n=360)

80%

100%

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Table 11 For each of the following, please tell me whether this would be a “very effective,” “somewhat effective,” or “not at all effective” way of getting information to you about Beaumont programs, services, and facilities. Percent of Respondents 2017 (n=375) 2015 (n=375) Very Effective

Somewhat Effective

Not at all Effective

Don’t Know/

It Depends

Not Stated

2017

2015

2017

2015

2017

2015

2017

2015

2017

2015

Beaumont News

Conversations with others

Beaumont Communiqué (newsletter sent with utility bill)

Beaumont website

Roadside signage

Beaumont social media pages (e.g., Facebook)

New electronic/digital sign*

Brochures

Attending Council meetings

93.1 FM The One radio station (new radio station in Leduc)

*New to the 2017 questionnaire

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey Selected Sub-Segment Findings Those aged 55 and older (51%) were significantly more likely to have reported that the Beaumont News would be a very effective source of information versus those aged 18 to 54 (39%). Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to have reported that the Beaumont website would be a very effective source of information included: ♦

Those who have lived in Beaumont for 5 years or less (42%) or 6 to 9 years (41%) versus those who have lived in Beaumont for 25 years or more (19%); and

♦

Those aged 18 to 54 (41%) versus those aged 55 and older (27%).

Conversely, respondent subgroups significantly more likely to have reported that the Beaumont website would not be an effective source of information included: ♦

Those aged 55 and older (24%) versus those aged 18 to 54 (11%); and

♦

Those who have not had contact with a Beaumont employee within the past 12 months (22%) versus those who have (13%).

Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to have reported that Beaumont social media pages would be a very effective source of information included: ♦

Those who have lived in Beaumont for 5 years or less (27%) or 6 to 9 years (36%) versus those who have lived in Beaumont for 15 to 24 years (13%) or 25 years or more (17%); and

♦

Those aged 18 to 54 (35%) versus those aged 55 and older (14%).

Conversely, respondent subgroups significantly more likely to have reported that Beaumont social media pages would not be an effective source of information included: ♦

Males (42%) versus females (31%); and

♦

Those aged 55 and older (44%) versus those aged 18 to 54 (28%).

Those who have lived in Beaumont for 15 to 24 years (40%) or 25 years or more (42%) were significantly more likely to have reported that the Beaumont Communiqué would be a very effective source of information versus those who have lived in Beaumont for 6 to 9 years (21%).

Final Report Conversely, respondent subgroups significantly more likely to have reported that the Beaumont Communiqué would not be an effective source of information included: ♦

Those who have lived in Beaumont for 5 years or less (25%) versus those who have lived in Beaumont for 25 years or more (13%);

♦

Those aged 18 to 54 (28%) versus those aged 55 and older (16%); and

♦

Those who have not had contact with a Beaumont employee within the past 12 months (30%) versus those who have (13%).

Those who have lived in Beaumont for 10 to 14 years (27%) were significantly more likely to have reported that brochures would be a very effective source of information versus those who have lived in Beaumont for 15 to 24 years (13%). Conversely, respondent subgroups significantly more likely to have reported that brochures would not be an effective source of information included: ♦

Those who have lived in Beaumont for 6 to 9 years (38%) versus those who have lived in Beaumont for 25 years or more (19%); and

♦

Those aged 18 to 54 (34%) versus those aged 55 and older (22%).

Those who have live in Beaumont for 10 to 14 years (30%) were significantly more likely to have reported that the new electronic/digital sign would be a very effective source of information versus those who have lived in Beaumont for 15 to 24 years (14%). Conversely, those aged 18 to 54 (37%) were significantly more likely to have reported that the new electronic/digital sign would not be an effective source of information versus those aged 55 and older (27%). Those who have lived in Beaumont for 6 to 9 years (35%) were significantly more likely to have reported that roadside signage would be a very effective source of information versus those who have lived in Beaumont for 25 years or more (19%). Males (17%) were significantly more likely to have reported that conversations with others would not be an effective source of information versus females (10%).

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

When asked if they could think of any other effective ways of getting information to them about Beaumont programs, services, or facilities, 31% of those who provided suggestions (n=54) indicated that e-mail or an enewsletter would be effective, followed by 26% who suggested mail-outs or flyers. See Table 12, below. Table 12 Are there any other effective ways of getting information to you about Beaumont programs, services, or facilities? Base: Respondents who suggested other methods for getting Beaumont information to them

Percent of Respondents* 2017

2015

2013

2011

(n=54)

(n=57)

(n=79)

(n=58)

E-mail/e-mailed newsletter

Mail/flyers/newsletters

Through schools (in general)

Activity/program books

Door-to-door canvassing/approaching people directly

Smartphone app

Television

Other (single mentions in 2017)

Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t Know/Not Stated

*Multiple responses

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Next, respondents were asked to indicate how likely they would be to use various types of social media to obtain information about people and events in Beaumont. As shown in Figure 44, right, more than half of the respondents (51%, comparable to 55% in 2015) indicated that they would be likely to use an e-mailed electronic newsletter (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5), while 49% would be likely to use roadside signs. For a detailed breakdown of the results, please see Table 13, on the following page.

Final Report Figure 44

Likelihood of Obtaining Information via Online Methods 51% 55% 57% 54%

E-mailed electronic newsletter

49% 45%

Roadside signs**

41%

New electronic/digital sign***

33% 29% 21% 12%

Facebook

8% 10% 17% 12%

YouTube Twitter

6% 9% 7% 2%

RSS feed

6% 8% 7% 6% 0%

20%

2017 (n=375)

40%

60%

80%

100%

2015 (n=375)

*Percent of respondents who are likely to use each source (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5) **New to the 2015 survey ***New to the 2017 survey

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Table 13 Please indicate the likelihood of you using each of the following to obtain information about Beaumont Percent of Respondents 2017 (n=375) 2015 (n=375) Very Likely

(4)

(5)

(3)

(2)

Not at all Likely

Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t Know/

Mean

(1)

Not Stated

(out of 5)

2017

2015

2017

2015

2017

2015

2017

2015

2017

2015

2017

2015

2017

2015

E-mailed electronic newsletter

3.34

3.40

Roadside signs*

3.30

3.26

New electronic/digital sign**

3.03

Facebook

2.48

2.36

YouTube

1.57

1.68

RSS feed

1.49

1.66

Twitter

1.37

1.49

*New to the 2015 survey **New to the 2017 survey

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

When asked if there were any other methods that they would use to obtain

Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be likely to use Facebook to obtain information about Beaumont included:

information about Beaumont, 28% of those who provided suggestions

♦

Females (44%) versus males (23%);

♦

Those who have lived in Beaumont for 6 to 9 years (47%) versus those who have lived in Beaumont for 15 to 24 years (27%) or 25 years or more (25%);

♦

Those aged 18 to 54 (46%) versus those aged 55 and older (23%).

Those aged 18 to 54 (10%) were significantly more likely to be likely to use YouTube to obtain information about Beaumont versus those aged 55 and older (5%). Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to be likely to use e-mailed electronic newsletters to obtain information about Beaumont included: ♦

Those who have lived in Beaumont for 5 years or less (59%) versus those who have lived in Beaumont for 15 to 24 years (39%); and

♦

Those who have had contact with a Beaumont employee within the past 12 months (58%) versus those who have not (44%).

Those who have lived in Beaumont for 6 to 9 years (10%) or 10 to 14 years (16%) were significantly more likely to be likely to use RSS feeds to obtain information about Beaumont versus those who have lived in Beaumont for 25 years or more (2%).

(n=126) mentioned the Beaumont website, while 27% reported that they would use the newspaper. See Table 14, below. Table 14 Are there any other methods you would use to obtain information about Beaumont? Base: Respondents who provided suggestions for other methods of communication

Percent of Respondents* 2017

2015

2013

2011

(n=126)

(n=88)

(n=52)

(n=68)

Beaumont website/interactive Beaumont website

Newspaper

Word of mouth

Go to Town offices

Brochures/pamphlets/mail-outs

Internet/Google/website (unspecified)

Telephone

Other (2% of respondents or less in 2017)

*Multiple responses

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

New to the 2015 survey, respondents were asked how satisfied they were

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

with the opportunities for public engagement. Nearly half of the respondents

Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to have been satisfied with Beaumont public engagement opportunities included:

(48%, a significant increase from 32% in 2015) were either somewhat (35%) or very (13%) satisfied (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5). See Figure 45, below. Figure 45

Satisfaction with the Opportunities for Public Engagement*

♦

Those who have lived in Beaumont for 10 to 14 years (61%) or 15 to 24 years (54%) versus those who have lived in Beaumont for 25 years or more (37%); and

♦

Those who have had contact with a Beaumont employee in the past 12 months (54%) versus those who have not (42%).

13% 10%

(5) Very Satisfied (4)

Reasons for Dissatisfaction* 22%

(3) (2)

8% 8%

(1) Very Dissatisfied

5% 8% 0%

20% 2017 (n=375)

35% ↑ 2017 Mean = 3.43 out of 5 37% 2015 Mean = 3.19 out of 5 44%

40%

60%

2015 (n=375)

*New to the 2015 survey ↑ indicates a significant increase from previous survey year

80%

100%

Respondents who were dissatisfied with the opportunities for public engagement (n=48) most often reported that Beaumont does not listen to residents/input is ignored or not taken seriously (25%). Other reasons respondents were dissatisfied included: ♦

Is unaware of public engagement opportunities/need to advertise opportunities (13%);

♦

Decisions are made without consulting residents (8%);

♦

Is not involved/interested/active in public engagement opportunities (6%);

♦

Upcoming events/activities/programs are not advertised soon enough (6%);

♦

Public engagement opportunities are limited/restricted (4%);

♦

Lack of information/communication given to residents (4%);

♦

Is too busy/lack of free time (4%); and

♦

Other (single mentions) (8%).

*Multiple responses

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Reasons for Neutrality* Respondents who were neutral with the opportunities for public engagement (n=148) most often reported that they are not involved/interested in public engagement (26%). Other reasons respondents were neutral included:

New to the 2015 survey, respondents were asked if they had participated in

♦

Is unaware of public engagement opportunities/need to advertise opportunities (13%);

months. One-third of respondents (33%, a significant increase from 23% in

♦

There are many ways/opportunities to give input/get voice heard (7%);

♦

Town does not listen to residents/input is ignored/not taken serious (7%);

♦

Is satisfied with public engagement opportunities (in general) (5%); and

♦

Other (3% of responses or less) (15%).

Figure 46

Have you participated in any public engagement opportunities provided by Beaumont in the past 12 months?*

80% Reasons for Satisfaction*

Respondents who were satisfied with the opportunities for public engagement (n=179) most often reported that they are satisfied with public engagement opportunities, in general (26%). Other reasons respondents were satisfied included: ♦

There are many ways/opportunities to give input/get voice heard (22%);

♦

Receives adequate information/communication (in general) (6%);

♦

Is not involved/interested in public engagement opportunities (6%);

♦

Public engagement opportunities are open/available to all residents (5%); and Other (3% of responses or less) (14%).

*Multiple responses

2015) participated, while 66% did not. See Figure 46, below.

100%

*Multiple response

♦

any public engagement opportunities provided by the Town in the past 12

66%

77%

60% 40%

33%

23%

20%

0% Yes 2017 (n=375)

No 2015 (n=375)

Don't Know

*New to the 2015 survey

Selected Sub-Segment Findings Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to have participated in a public engagement opportunity provided by Beaumont in the past 12 months included: ♦

Those who have had contact with a Beaumont employee within the past 12 months (43%) versus those who have not (25%);

♦

Those who have lived in Beaumont for 10 to 14 years (44%) versus those who have lived in Beaumont for 5 years or less (28%).

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Next, respondents were asked to indicate how likely they would be to use various types of public engagement opportunities in Beaumont. As shown in Figure 47, below, more than half of the respondents (60%) indicated that they would be likely to participate in online surveys (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5). For a detailed breakdown of the results, please see Table 15, on the following page. Figure 47

Likelihood of Participating in Public Engagement Opportunties* ** 60% 58%

Online Surveys

Council meetings

14% 14%

Round table discussions

13% 16% 0%

20%

2017 (n=375)

40%

Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to have been likely to participate in online forums included: ♦

Females (35%) versus males (25%);

♦

Those who have lived in Beaumont for 6 to 9 years (40%) versus those who have lived in Beaumont for 15 to 24 years (19%); and

♦

Those who have had contact with a Beaumont employee within the past 12 months (36%) versus those who have not (24%).

Respondent subgroups significantly more likely to have been likely to participate in round table discussions included:

30% 30%

Online Forums

Those who have had contact with a Beaumont employee within the past 12 months (67%) were significantly more likely to have been likely to participate in online surveys versus those who have not (55%).

Those who have lived in Beaumont for 25 years or more (37%) were significantly more likely to have been likely to participate in open houses versus those who have lived in Beaumont for 6 to 9 years (21%).

32% 29%

Open houses

Selected Sub-Segment Findings

60%

80%

♦

Those who have lived in Beaumont for 15 to 24 years (23%) versus those who have lived in Beaumont for 10 to 14 years (9%) or 25 years or more (10%); and

♦

Those who have had contact with a Beaumont employee within the past 12 months (17%) versus those who have not (9%).

100%

2015 (n=375)

*Percent of respondents who are likely to participate in each opportunity (ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5) **New to the 2015 survey

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Table 15 Please indicate the likelihood of you using each of the following to obtain information about Beaumont. Percent of Respondents 2017 (n=375) 2015 (n=375) Very Likely

(4)

(5)

(3)

(2)

Not at all Likely

Don’t Know/

Mean

(1)

Not Stated

(out of 5)

2017

2015

2017

2015

2017

2015

2017

2015

2017

2015

2017

2015

2017

2015

Online surveys

3.49

3.42

Open houses

2.85

2.71

Online forums

2.58

2.57

Round table discussions

2.16

Council meetings

2.14

2.12

Other Methods of Participation* Respondents who reported other ways they would be likely to participate or provide input regarding the Beaumont’s plans and priorities (n=36) most frequently mentioned telephone surveys (36%). Other responses included: ♦

Visiting/contacting Town Office (28%);

♦

E-mail (11%);

♦

Mailed/print surveys (8%);

♦

Door-to-door/in person (8%);

♦

Online (in general) (8%); and

♦

Beaumont website (3%).

*Multiple responses

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Finally, respondents were asked if they had any additional comments about the services provided by Beaumont. Thirteen percent (13%) of the respondents who provided comments (n=71) reported that they are satisfied with and/or like Beaumont (in general), and 13% would like improved recreation facilities/programs. See Table 16, right.

Final Report Table 16 Do you have any additional comments about the services provided by Beaumont? Base: Respondents who provided additional comments

Percent of Respondents* 2017

2015

2013

2011

(n=71)

(n=91)

(n=88)

(n=84)

Satisfied with the Town/likes Beaumont (in general)

Need to improve recreation facilities/activities/ programs

Need to improve garbage pick-up services

Improve traffic flow/road infrastructure/ensure route is right

Need to improve policing (more police, better attitudes)

Need to improve bylaw enforcement (e.g., animals, vacant lots, etc.)

Need to attract more businesses

Need more public transit

Other (4% of respondents or less in 2017)

*Multiple responses

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

3.10 Respondent Demographics

Table 18 Percent of Respondents

Tables 17, 18, and 19, below and continued on the following page, provide a demographic profile of the respondents surveyed in 2017.

(n=375) Highest Level of Education

Table 17 Percent of Respondents (n=375) Gender

Less than high school

Graduated high school

Some college, technical, or vocational school

Graduated college, technical, or vocational school

Male

Some university

Female

Graduated university

Don’t Know/Not Stated

Respondent Age 18 to 24 years old

Employment Status

25 to 34 years old

Working full-time, including self-employment

35 to 44 years old

Retired

45 to 54 years old

Working part-time, including self-employment

55 to 64 years old

Homemaker

65 years of age or older

Student

Don’t Know/Not Stated

Not employed

Don’t Know/Not Stated

Percent of households with at least one (1) person in each age group

Percent of Respondents (n=374)*

Do you work in Beaumont?

Percent of Respondents (n=212)*

Under 13 years old

Between 13 and 18 years old

Yes

Between 19 and 44 years old

Between 45 and 64 years old

No *Base: Respondents that are employed

65 years of age or older

Mean Household Size *Excludes ‘don’t know’ responses

2.99 people

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Table 19 Percent of Respondents (n=375) How long have you lived in Beaumont? Less than 6 months

6 months to less than 1 year

1 to 2 years

3 to 5 years

6 to 9 years

10 to 14 years

15 to 24 years

25 years or more

Household Income in 2016 (before taxes) Less than $20,000

$20,000 to less than $25,000

$25,000 to less than $30,000

$30,000 to less than $35,000

$35,000 to less than $40,000

$40,000 to less than $45,000

$45,000 to less than $50,000

$50,000 to less than $75,000

$75,000 to less than $100,000

$100,000 to less than $125,000

$125,000 to less than $150,000

$150,000 to less than $175,000

$175,000 to less than $200,000

$200,000 or more

Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t Know/Not Stated

Appendix A Survey Instrument

Beaumont

2017 CITIZEN SATISFACTION SURVEY Introduction Hello, my name is ________ with Banister Research, a professional research firm. We have been contracted to conduct a survey on behalf of Beaumont Council and Administration to ask your opinions about services provided to residents by Beaumont. 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 Beaumont services. As a thank you for completing this survey, we will be conducting a draw for one (1) annual pass to the Aqua-Fit facility, with a value of up $537. We understand that you may have recently answered questions regarding a municipal and federal census. This Citizen Satisfaction Survey is different from the censuses you have participated in and your views are important for this study. [Interviewer Note: If residents have questions about the study they can be referred to Nick Nilsen, Communications Officer, 780-929-3301] 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

Record Gender:

WATCH QUOTAS

1. Male 2. Female

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

(n=185) (n=185)

Do you live within the corporate limits of Beaumont? 1. Yes 2. No

Thank and end interview

This interview will take about 12 to 15 minutes. Is this a convenient time for us to talk, or should we call you back? 1. Convenient time 2. Not convenient time

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Continue Arrange callback

Page 77

How long have you lived in Beaumont? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. F5

Less than 6 months 6 months to less than one year 1 to 2 years 3 to 5 years 6 to 9 years 10 to 14 years 15 to 24 years 25 years or more Not stated

Overall Perceptions/Quality of Life 1.

In your opinion, what would you say are the three most significant factors contributing positively to your quality of life in Beaumont? (Probe) 1. Other - Specify F5 (Don’t know)

And, what would you say are the three most significant factors that contribute to a lower quality of life in Beaumont? (Probe) 1. Other - Specify F5 (Don’t know)

Next, I would like you to rate each of the following aspects of life in Beaumont using a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 mean “excellent” and 5 means “poor”. First, how would you rate Beaumont in terms of.….? (Read list. Ask Q3a first. Randomly rotate Q3b–g) 1. Excellent 2. Very good 3. Good 4. Fair 5. Poor F5 Don’t know a) b) c) d) e) f) g)

the overall quality of life as a place to raise a family value received for taxes being a safe place to live the quality of the environment cleanliness and neatness of Beaumont as a place to live-long term (more than 20 years)

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Page 78

How safe do you feel living in Beaumont? 1. Very safe 2. Somewhat safe 3. Somewhat unsafe 4. Very unsafe 9. Don't Know/Not Stated

Community Identity 5A.

5B.

In terms of community identity, when you think about Beaumont, what is the first thing that comes to mind? (Probe key words or images) 1. Other - Specify F5 Don’t know What do you consider to be Beaumont’s strengths and unique features? 1. Other - Specify F5 Don’t know

On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means “do not agree at all” and 5 means “strongly agree,” please rate your level of agreement that Beaumont has successfully developed a French flair and is recognized for it. 1. Do not agree at all 2. .. 3. .. 4. .. 5. Strongly agree F5 Don’t know

Strategic Plan 7.

Beaumont’s vision is “…A prosperous, vibrant, healthy, family-oriented community, that welcomes diversity, nurtures business, promotes excellence and is environmentally conscious, while celebrating its French heritage.” Using the same 5 point scale, please rate your level of agreement with Beaumont’s vision. 1. 2 3 4 5. F5

Do not agree at all .. .. .. Strongly agree Don’t know

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Page 79

Beaumont’s mission is “To provide quality programs and services to residents, organizations, visitors and business community so that life is better in Beaumont.” How strongly do you agree with this mission? 1. Do not agree at all 2. .. 3. .. 4. .. 5. Strongly agree F5 Don’t know

Beaumont Council and staff believe that the following four values must govern their behaviors’ in all that they do; accountability, excellence, integrity and respect. How strongly do you agree with Beaumont’s values? 1. Do not agree at all 2. .. 3. .. 4. .. 5. Strongly agree F5 Don’t know

10.

How familiar are you with Beaumont’s Strategic Plan? Would you say you are…? 1. Very familiar 2. Somewhat familiar 3. Not at all familiar F5 Don’t know/Not stated

11.

12.

Thinking of the 6 components of Beaumont’s strategic plan, I would like you to talk about how important each of these are to you, on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means not at all important and 5 means very important. How important is...? a. b. c. d. e. f.

Communication and Citizen Engagement Community Identity Complete Community Economic Development Fiscal and Asset Management People Services

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. F5

Not at all important .. .. .. Very important Don’t Know

Is there a focus area that is missing in this list that you would like to add? Other-Specify F5 (Don’t know)

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Page 80

13.

How satisfied are you with Beaumont’s overall direction as outlined by the Strategic Plan? [READ IF NECESSARY: The 6 components of Beaumont’s strategic plan are Communication and Citizen Engagement; Community Identity; Complete Community; Economic Development; Fiscal and Asset Management; and People Services] 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

14.

What would you say is the most important issue facing Beaumont today? 1. Other - Specify F5 Don’t know

Satisfaction with Beaumont Services, Programs, Facilities and Infrastructure 15.

Using a scale of 1 to 5 where, 1 mean very dissatisfied and 5 means very satisfied, and taking into consideration all Beaumont services, programs, facilities and infrastructure, overall, how satisfied are you with the services provided by Beaumont to residents? 1. Very dissatisfied 2. .. 3. .. 4. .. 5. Very satisfied F5 (Don’t know)

16.

Thinking about the specific services and programs provided by the Beaumont, I would like to talk to you about how satisfied you are with each of the different services. First, based on your own experiences or your general perceptions of the service, how satisfied are you with…? (Read list. Randomly rotate.) 1. Very dissatisfied 2. .. 3. .. 4. .. 5. Very satisfied F5 (Don’t know) a) b) c) d)

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Page 81

e) f) g) h) i) j) k) l) m) n) o) p) q) r)

16.b.

Emergency medical (provided by Alberta Health Services) Fire service Schools (provided by the Province of Alberta) Water and sewer services Enforcement of municipal bylaws and provincial laws including traffic infractions, and animal or weed control Building permits Land use planning and approvals (including developments permits) Attracting and supporting local business Community events Recreation and leisure learning programs Family & Community Support Services, including counselling, seniors supports, parenting groups and youth counselling and family violence prevention and support Chantal Bérubé Youth Centre Child care programs Library services

(If somewhat or very dissatisfied in Q.16, ask for each:) What specific aspects of the (insert service from Q.16) dissatisfied you? 1. Other - Specify F5 Don’t know

17.

Thinking, again, about the specific services and programs provided by Beaumont, I would like to talk to you about how important each of these are to you , on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means not at all important and 5 means very important. How important is…? (Read list. Randomly rotate.) 1. Not at all important . 5. Very important F5 Don’t know a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i)

curbside blue bag recycling, organics, and garbage collection services winter road maintenance including snow removal and ice management summer road maintenance including paving, pothole repair and sidewalk maintenance RCMP services Emergency medical (provided by Alberta Health Services) Fire service Schools (provided by the Province of Alberta) Water and sewer services Enforcement of municipal bylaws and provincial laws including traffic infractions, and animal or weed control j) Building permits k) Land use planning and approvals (including developments permits) l) Attracting and supporting local business m) Community events n) Recreation and leisure learning programs Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Page 82

o) Family & Community Support Services, including counselling, seniors supports, parenting groups and youth counselling and family violence prevention and support p) Chantal Bérubé Youth Centre q) Child care programs r) Library services 18.

Next, I would like you to rate your level of satisfaction with each of the following infrastructure operated or funded by Beaumont. Regardless of your own use, how satisfied are you with ….? (Read list. Randomly rotate.) 1. Very dissatisfied 2. .. 3. .. 4. .. 5. Very satisfied F5 Don’t know a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

18b.

Aqua-Fit Centre (pool) Ken Nichol Regional Recreation Centre Parks (outdoor rinks, water play park, skate park etc) Trails The new Beaumont Community Centre (CCBCC) Roads and sidewalks including land drainage Water and sewer systems

(If somewhat or very dissatisfied in Q.18, ask for each:) What specific aspects of the (insert infrastructure from Q.18) dissatisfied you? 1. Other - Specify F5 Don’t know

19.

Again, I would like you to rate the importance of these infrastructures operated or funded by Beaumont, on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means “not at all important” and 5 means “very important.” How important is…? (Read list. Randomly rotate.) 1. Not at all important 2. .. 3. .. 4. .. 5. Very important F5 Don’t know a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

Aqua-Fit Centre (pool) Ken Nichol Regional Recreation Centre Parks (outdoor rinks, water play park, skate park etc.) Trails The new Beaumont Community Centre (CCBCC) Roads and sidewalks including land drainage Water and sewer systems

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Page 83

Contact with Beaumont Employees 20.

In the past 12 months, have you been in contact, either by phone, in person, by mail, email or through the Internet, with any employees who work for Beaumont? 1. Yes 2. No F5 Don’t know

21.

(If yes in Q.20, ask) Thinking about your last contact with a Beaumont employee, overall, how satisfied were you with the service provided by the Beaumont employee that you last contacted? Would you say you were…? (Read list) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. F5

22.

GO TO Q.23 GO TO Q.23

Very dissatisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Somewhat satisfied Very satisfied Don’t know

Still thinking about your contact with a Beaumont employee, I would like to know if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with each of the following statements. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the Beaumont employee that you last contacted… (Read list, randomly rotate)? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. F5 a) b) c) d) e)

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree Don’t know

was accessible was courteous was knowledgeable about the services they provide was responsive to your needs showed interest in your needs

Property Taxes and Financial Planning 23.

Do you own or rent a home in Beaumont? 1. Own 2. Rent F5 Not stated

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

GO TO Q.25 GO TO Q.25

Page 84

24.

Thinking about Beaumont services over the next five years, which of the following tax strategies would you most likely support? Would you most likely support …? (Read list) 1. 2. 3. 4. F5

A cost of living tax increase to maintain the current level of services from Beaumont A tax increase, above inflation, to enhance or increase the level of services Or, a tax decrease to reduce the level of services from Beaumont Depends – Specify Don’t know

Beaumont Communications 25.

On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means do not agree at all and 5 means strongly agree, please rate your level of agreement that Beaumont’s communication to residents provides you with a general awareness and understanding of priorities, projects and initiatives undertaken by Beaumont. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. F5

26.

Do not agree at all .. .. .. Strongly agree Don’t know

(If 1 or 2 in Q.25 Ask:) What is the main reason you feel that way? 1. Other - Specify F5 Don’t know

27.

1. 2. 3. 4.

For each of the following, please tell me if this would be a very, somewhat or not at all effective way of getting information to you about Beaumont programs, services and facilities. The first way would be… ? very effective somewhat effective not at all effective Depends – Specify F5 Don’t know a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j.

Beaumont News Attend Council meetings Beaumont website Beaumont social media (Facebook, Twitter) Beaumont Communiqué (Newsletter sent with your utility bill) 93.1 FM The One radio station in Leduc Brochures New Electronic/Digital Sign Roadside signs Conversations with others

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Page 85

27.B. Are there any other effective ways of getting information to you about Beaumont programs? 1. Other-Specify F5 Don’t know 28.

There a now a variety of different methods that people use to obtain information about people and events. Please indicate on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means not at all likely and 5 means very likely, the likelihood of you using one of the following to obtain information about Beaumont? a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

Facebook Twitter YouTube Emailed electronic newsletter RSS Feed Roadside signs New Electronic/Digital Sign

28.B. Are there any other methods you would use to obtain information about Beaumont? 1. Other – Specify F5 Don’t know

Public Involvement 29.

How satisfied are you with opportunities for public engagement, to provide input and share your comments on topics that matter to you, with Beaumont? Please use a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means “very dissatisfied” and 5 means “very satisfied”? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. F5

29B.

Very dissatisfied .. .. .. Very satisfied Don’t know

Why did you provide that response? 1. Other-Specify F5 Don’t know

30.

Have you participated in any public engagement opportunities provided by Beaumont in the past 12 months? 1. Yes 2. No F5 Don’t know

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Page 86

31.

Using a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means “not at all likely” and 5 means “very likely,” how likely are you to participate in public engagement opportunities regarding Beaumont’s plans and priorities in the following ways? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. F5 a. b. c. d. e.

31B.

Not at all likely .. .. .. Very likely Don’t know

Online surveys Online forums Council meetings Open houses Round table discussions

Are there any other ways that you would be likely to participate or provide input regarding Beaumont’s plans and priorities? 1. Other-Specify F5 Don’t know

Respondent Characteristics 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. D1.

In what year were you born? _______ RECORD YEAR F5 (Don’t know/refused)

D2.

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. 2. 3. 4. 5. F5

Under 13 years old Between 13 and 18 years old Between 19 and 44 years old Between 45 and 64 years old 65 years of age or older Don’t know/refused

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Page 87

D3.

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 college, technical or vocational school 4. Graduated college, technical or vocational school 5. Some university 6. Graduated university F5. Not stated

D4.

And, what is your current employment status? (Read list) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. F5

D5.

Working full time, including self-employment Working part time, including self-employment Homemaker Student Not employed Retired Not stated

(If codes 1 or 2 in Q.D4, ask) Do you work in Beaumont? 1. Yes 2. No F5 Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know

D6.

Into which of the following categories would you place your total household income before taxes for last year that is for 2016? Would that be above or below $50,000? (Read list if necessary) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Less than $20,000 $20,000 to less than $25,000 $25,000 to less than $30,000 $30,000 to less than $35,000 $35,000 to less than $40,000 $40,000 to less than $45,000 $45,000 to less than $50,000

8. $50,000 to less than $75,000 9. $75,000 to less than $100,000 10. $100,000 to less than $125,000 11. $125,000 to less than $150,000 12. $150,000 to less than $175,000 13. $175,000 to less than $200,000 14. $200,000 or more F5 Refused D7.

Finally, do you have any additional comments about the services provided by Beaumont? 1. Other â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Specify F5 (Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know)

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Page 88

That’s all of the questions I have. Thank you very much for your participation in this study, your feedback is greatly appreciated. Contest Release Form You now have the option to enter a randomly selected prize draw for one (1) annual pass to the Aqua-Fit facility, with a value of up $537. To enter the draw, please provide your name and an e-mail address and/or telephone number where we can contact you. Personal information will only be used to contact the draw winner. Your name, phone number and e-mail address will not be used for any other purpose and will remain confidential. The personal information (name, phone number, and/or e-mail address) provided is collected under the authority of section 33(c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Would you like to enter the draw? Yes – If yes, enter information below No – Continue to panel recruit form First Name: ____________________________ Last Name: ____________________________ E-mail Address: _________________________ Phone Number: _________________________ [MANDATORY] Please confirm that you give permission for Beaumont (or agents acting on its behalf) to contact you if you are selected as one of the draw winners. Yes No Panel Recruit Form Beaumont and/or agents acting on its behalf, will potentially be interested in recruiting you again for future research and public engagement opportunities. This information will not be shared with third parties and will be kept strictly confidential. Do we have your permission to contact you in the future for other research and public engagement opportunities? Yes – If yes, enter information below No – Thank and terminate First Name: ____________________________ Last Name: ____________________________ E-mail Address: _________________________ Phone Number: _________________________

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Page 89

Thanks again for participating in the survey. If you would like to provide further comments on any of the questions in this survey, please visit Beaumontâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s website at www.beaumont.ab.ca/css

Beaumont 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

Page 90