2019 Citizen Survey

2019 CITIZEN SURVEY City of Coquitlam FINAL REPORT 2020-01-22

© 2020 2019 Ipsos. All rights reserved. Contains Ipsos' Confidential and Proprietary information and may not be disclosed or reproduced without the prior written consent of Ipsos.

Contents 1

Introduction

8

Parks, Recreation, and Culture

2

Executive Summary

9

Communication and Public Consultation

3

Quality of Life

10

Customer Service

4

Issue Agenda

11

Work

5

Transportation

12

Weighted Sample Characteristics

6

City Services

13

Appendix: Survey Tracking

7

Financial Planning

2 ‒ Š Ipsos

INTRODUCTION

3 ‒ © Ipsos

Background and Objectives This report presents the findings of the City of Coquitlam’s 2019 Citizen Survey. The Citizen Survey is typically conducted annually and obtains residents’ feedback on municipal services, priority issues, and quality of life. Ipsos has been conducting the City of Coquitlam’s Citizen Survey since 2003.

The key research objectives of the 2019 survey included:

•

Identify important community issues

•

Assess perceptions of the quality of life in Coquitlam

•

Measure the importance of and satisfaction with municipal services

•

Determine the perceived value for taxes and attitudes towards financial planning

•

Understand information needs and communication preferences

•

Measure participation and interest in municipal public consultations

•

Measure past year contact with the City of Coquitlam as well as satisfaction with the City’s customer service

•

Identify important transportation issues

•

Identify priorities for investment in parks, recreation, and culture

•

Determine employment status and location

Insight gained by this research will help the City make important decisions regarding planning, budgeting, and community priorities.

4 ‒ © Ipsos

Methodology Ipsos conducted a total of 500 telephone interviews with a randomly selected representative sample of Coquitlam residents aged 18 years or older. Interviewing was conducted exclusively on landlines.

The sample of residents was drawn by postal code. A screening question was included at the start of the survey to confirm residency in Coquitlam.

All interviews were conducted between November 18 and December 2, 2019.

Overall results are accurate to within ±4.4%, 19 times out of 20. The margin of error will be larger for sample subgroups.

The final data has been weighted to ensure that the gender/age and neighbourhood distribution reflects that of the actual population in Coquitlam according to 2016 Census data.

5 ‒ © Ipsos

Neighbourhood Map A map of the neighbourhoods identified in the survey can be found below.

6 ‒ Š Ipsos

Interpreting and Viewing the Results Some totals in the report may not add to 100%. Some summary statistics (e.g., total satisfied) may not match their component parts. The numbers are correct and the apparent errors are due to rounding.

Analysis of some of the statistically significant demographic results is included where applicable. While a number of significant differences may appear in the cross-tabulation output, not all differences warrant discussion.

TRACKING TO PREVIOUS SURVEYS Where appropriate, this year’s results have been compared to past City of Coquitlam Citizen Surveys.

Comparing the year-over-year results allows the City to understand how citizens’ attitudes and priorities are changing, identify new or emerging issues facing the community, and monitor perceptions of the City’s performance in key areas.

Arrows ( ) are used to denote differences of 5% or greater between 2019 and 2018 for results based on the full sample size.

For some questions, survey tracking dates as far back as 2003. While this report primarily focuses on trends over the past decade (e.g., 2009-2019), the complete year-over-year survey results for questions with data prior to 2009 have been included as an Appendix.

NORMATIVE COMPARISONS Where appropriate, this year’s results have been compared to Ipsos’ database of municipal norms. These norms are based on research Ipsos has conducted in other British Columbian municipalities within the past five years. Normative comparisons provide additional insight, context, and benchmarks against which the City of Coquitlam can evaluate its performance.

7 ‒ © Ipsos

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

8 ‒ © Ipsos

Executive Summary QUALITY OF LIFE Overall perceptions of quality of life remain strong. In total, 98% of citizens rate Coquitlam’s overall quality of life as ‘very good’ (48%) or ‘good’ (49%). This year’s results are identical to 2018 although the percentage saying ‘very good’ is notably higher now as compared to a decade ago (up 18 percentage points).

Citizens continue to feel positive about the direction that quality of life is taking. Overall, 48% of residents feel the quality of life in Coquitlam has ‘stayed the same’ over the past five years. Among those noticing a change, more say ‘improved’ (33%) than ‘worsened’ (18%), resulting in a net momentum score of +15 percentage points. Again, this year’s net score is consistent with 2018 although notably higher than a decade ago (up 13 percentage points). In comparison, the municipal norm net score is -1.

•

Residents saying the quality of life has ‘improved’ attribute this to several factors, with the top open-ended responses being “growth/development” (18%), “SkyTrain/Evergreen Line” (18%), “improved transportation/roads” (13%), and “improved recreational facilities/parks” (11%).

•

Among those saying the quality of life has ‘worsened’, the leading open-ended reason is “growth/development” (27%), followed by “housing costs/affordable housing” (18%), “traffic/traffic congestion” (16%), and “economy/rising cost of living” (12%).

To improve Coquitlam’s quality of life, citizens suggest focusing on transportation, affordability, and parks and recreation. When asked for specific actions the City could take to improve the quality of life, citizens’ leading open-ended suggestions are “improve transportation infrastructure/roads” (10%), “improve traffic congestion/flow” (8%), “improve transit/public transportation” (8%), “affordable housing” (8%), “more green space/parks” (8%), and “improve/expand recreation facilities/programs/services” (8%).

9 ‒ © Ipsos

Executive Summary ISSUE AGENDA Transportation continues to top the issue agenda. Overall, 34% of citizens identify transportation as an important local issue on an open-ended basis. The main mentions include “traffic congestion” (12%), “quality/level of public transit” (10%), “condition of streets/roads” (6%), and “transportation (general)” (6%). Transportation has consistently been the leading top-of-mind community issue since 2003 and this year’s results are similar to 2018.

Social issues have stabilized. Following transportation, the next most important local issue is social (25%). The single biggest social issue is “housing/lack of affordable housing” (18%). In fact, “housing/lack of affordable housing” is the most frequently mentioned issue overall when responses are not categorized into the broader thematic Nets. The next most frequently mentioned social issue is “poverty/homelessness” (6%). While social issues have been a growing concern over the past few years, the emphasis placed on social issues has stabilized and this year’s results are statistically consistent with 2018.

Growth and development rounds out citizens’ top three community issues. Overall, 15% of citizens mention issues related to growth and development.

The two main mentions are “population growth” (6%) and “level of development” (5%). Mentions of growth and development are on par with 2018.

TRANSPORTATION Public transportation and traffic congestion continue to be the dominant transportation issues. Recognizing that transportation is an important local issue, the survey asked residents to identify (on an open-ended basis) what they see as the biggest transportation issue facing Coquitlam today. The two most frequently mentioned issues are “quality/level of public transportation” (35%) and “traffic/traffic congestion” (29%). All other transportation issues are mentioned by less than 10% of residents. Mentions of public transportation are up 5 points from 2018.

10 ‒ © Ipsos

Executive Summary CITY SERVICES Overall satisfaction with City services remains high. A strong majority (96%) of citizens say they are satisfied with the overall level and quality of services provided by the City of Coquitlam (46% ‘very satisfied’, 50% ‘somewhat satisfied’). Overall satisfaction (combined ‘very/somewhat satisfied’ responses) is consistent with 2018 although the percentage saying ‘very satisfied’ is up 7 percentage points this year, representing a new all-time high.

Satisfaction extends to the delivery of specific services. Of the evaluated services, the highest satisfaction scores (combined ‘very/somewhat satisfied’ responses) go to fire services (97%), public works, including drinking water quality and sewers (97%), parks, trails, and other green space (96%), and police services (96%). All four of these services also receive strong ‘very satisfied’ ratings. A large majority of residents also say they are satisfied with sports fields (92%), recycling and garbage services (91%), and recreational and cultural opportunities (90%). In comparison, road maintenance (81%) and neighbourhood planning (75%) score lower, both overall and in intensity. Satisfaction with most services is consistent with 2018. The one exception is recycling and garbage services, which is up 5 points this year.

All of the evaluated services are important to citizens. Of the nine evaluated services, eight receive an importance score (combined ‘very/somewhat important’ responses) higher than 90%. Moreover, many of these services (particularly those relating to public health and safety) receive high ‘very important’ scores. The one service rated relatively lower is sports fields (88%), although this is still important to a large majority of residents. Compared to 2018, residents this year attach a greater importance to both recycling and garbage services (up 5 points) and sports fields (up 8 points).

FINANCIAL PLANNING Perceptions of the City’s value for taxes remain high. The majority (88%) of citizens say they receive good value for their municipal tax dollars (26% ‘very good value’, 62% ‘good value’). This year’s results are statistically consistent with 2018 although the percentage saying ‘very good value’ has been steadily increasing over the past few years and is now 6 points higher than 2016.

Citizens continue to prefer tax increases over service cuts. When given the choice between increased taxes or reduced services, 59% of citizens opt for tax increases compared to 29% saying they would prefer service cuts. While citizens have demonstrated a clear preference for tax increases over service cuts for several years, this year’s results point to a strengthening of this position (compared to 2018, tax increases is up 10 points while service cuts is down 10 points).

11 ‒ © Ipsos

Executive Summary PARKS, RECREATION, AND CULTURE Citizens’ top three priorities for parks, recreation, and culture are neighbourhood parks, community centres, and trails. When it comes to investing in parks, recreation, and culture over the next five years, citizens attach the greatest importance (combined ‘very/somewhat important’ responses) to neighbourhood parks, including playgrounds and community gardens (95%), community centres, including senior and youth facilities (91%), and hiking, walking, and biking trails (90%). These three priorities also receive high ‘very important’ scores. Other important priorities include public festivals and community events (89%), swimming pools (84%), and sports fields and outdoor courts (84%). This is followed by performing arts and theatre (78%) and arena facilities for ice sports, curling, and lacrosse (75%). In comparison, citizens place less emphasis on indoor racquet and court facilities (60%), although these are still important to the majority of residents. This year’s results are statistically consistent with 2018.

COMMUNICATION Citizens continue to be interested in receiving a variety of information from the City. The two most frequently mentioned information needs (coded openends) are “community infrastructure (improvements, updates)” (19%) and “City spending/budgets” (14%). Other top mentions include “housing/development” (8%), “community events/activities” (6%), “general city news/updates” (6%), and “transparency/accountability” (5%). Nearly four-in-ten (38%) residents indicate they have no immediate information needs, with 33% saying “none/nothing” and 5% saying “don’t know”. This year’s results are similar to 2018.

Email remains the best way of communicating information to citizens. Four-in-ten (40%) citizens say “email” is the best way for the City to communicate information to them (coded open-ends). This is followed by “mail” (25%), “City website” (25%), “newsletter/pamphlet/flyer/brochure” (16%), “newspaper” (14%), and “social media (Twitter, Facebook, etc.)” (13%). Mentions of “City website” are up 7 points this year.

If citizens needed to contact the City, there is a strong preference for reaching out via telephone or email. When contacting the City, 78% of residents say they would prefer to use the “telephone” and 54% mention “email”. The next most frequently mentioned responses are “in-person” (14%) and “City website” (11%). “Telephone” mentions are up 6 points this year.

12 ‒ © Ipsos

Executive Summary PUBLIC CONSULTATION Most citizens have not participated in any type of municipal public consultation within the past two years. Overall, 27% of citizens say they participated in a public consultation conducted on behalf of a municipality within the last two years. This could be a public consultation for any municipality, not just the City of Coquitlam.

The most common method of participation is attending an in-person information session or open house. Overall, 59% of those who participated in a municipal public consultation within the past two years say they attended an in-person information session or open house. The next most common methods of participation are any other type of online survey [excluding the City of Coquitlam’s Viewpoint panel survey] (49%) and phone (41%).

Citizens learned about the opportunity to provide input via a variety of channels. Among those who participated, the two most common ways (coded open-ends) of learning about the opportunity to provide input are “email” (25%) and “newspaper ad” (23%). Other top mentions include “social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram)” (18%), “City website” (15%), “word of mouth” (15%), and “mail” (14%).

Lack of time is cited as the main reason for not participating in municipal public consultations. When asked why they might choose to not take part in a municipal public consultation, 45% of citizens say “too busy/times are not convenient” (coded open-ends). The next most frequently mentioned barriers are “lack of advertising/awareness of opportunity” (20%), “not interested” (15%), and “issue does not impact me” (12%).

The three most appealing forms of public consultation are surveys, online feedback forms, and open houses. Of the evaluated methods, citizens demonstrate the greatest interest (combined ‘very/somewhat interested’ responses) in participating in surveys like this (74%), feedback forms on the City’s website (73%) and public open houses where residents can observe and comment on information posted on display boards (66%). A small majority also express interest in small community focus groups (55%) and community workshops where residents take part in active discussion sessions (55%).

There is less interest in mail in workbooks (45%), the City’s Facebook or Twitter page (42%), and online blogs or discussion forums (37%). For all methods of public consultation, most of those interested describe themselves as ‘somewhat’ rather than ‘very’ interested. Compared to 2018, this year’s results point to increased interest in surveys (up 7 points), online feedback forms (up 5 points), and focus groups (up 5 points).

13 ‒ © Ipsos

Executive Summary CUSTOMER SERVICE Claimed contact with the City holds steady. Overall, 46% of citizens say they personally contacted or dealt with the City of Coquitlam or one of its employees in the last 12 months. Claimed contact is on par with 2018.

Citizens have various reasons for contacting the City. Among those saying they contacted the City in the last 12 months, the most common reasons (coded open-ends) for establishing contact are “garbage/recycling collection” (12%), “pay my taxes/utilities” (9%), “bylaws” (7%), “parks/recreational facilities” (6%), and “parking” (5%). This year’s results are consistent with 2018.

The telephone is the most common method of contact. Slightly more than one-half (51%) of those who contacted the City say this contact occurred via the “telephone” (coded open-ends). Another 28% say they visited “in-person” while 13% used “email”. Again, this year’s results are consistent with 2018.

Satisfaction with the City’s customer service remains high. Overall, 88% of those who contacted the City say they are satisfied (combined ‘very/somewhat satisfied’ responses) with the overall service received. More specifically, 93% are satisfied with the courteousness of the staff, 90% are satisfied with staff’s helpfulness, 88% are satisfied with staff’s knowledge, 88% are satisfied with the ease of reaching staff, 88% are satisfied with the speed and timeliness of service, and 85% are satisfied with the ability of staff to understand your needs. In comparison, satisfaction with staff’s ability to resolve your issue scores lower (78%), although the majority still say they are satisfied with this service attribute. Satisfaction with the City’s customer service is on par with 2018.

WORK Key employment metrics are stable. Overall, 59% of citizens say they are employed either ‘full-time’ (49%) or ‘part-time’ (10%). Among those working or attending school, one-quarter (25%) say their employment or school is ‘based in Coquitlam’. These results are consistent with 2018.

14 ‒ © Ipsos

Highlights Most survey measures are stable and strong.

•

Quality of life (98% good)

•

Overall service satisfaction (96% satisfied)

•

Value for taxes (88% good value)

•

Satisfaction with customer service (88% satisfied)

Satisfaction with individual services is largely unchanged and any shifts in overall satisfaction are positive.

Quality of life continues to have positive momentum. While growth and development has improved the quality of life of some residents, it has detracted from others.

Transportation continues to top the issue agenda. Social issues have stabilized.

Citizens demonstrate a strong preference for tax increases over service cuts.

Time is the biggest barrier to public participation; other factors include lack of awareness, interest, and relevancy.

15 ‒ © Ipsos

QUALITY OF LIFE

16 ‒ © Ipsos

Quality of Life Overall perceptions of quality of life remain strong. In total, 98% of citizens rate Coquitlam’s overall quality of life as ‘very good’ (48%) or ‘good’ (49%). This year’s results are identical to 2018 although the percentage saying ‘very good’ is notably higher now as compared to a decade ago (up 18 percentage points). Perceptions of the quality of life in Coquitlam are on par with the municipal norm.

•

Residents who are more likely to say the quality of life is ‘very good’ are older (58% of 55+ years vs. 37% of 18-34 years, 48% of 35-54 years) and live outside of West Coquitlam (58% in Westwood Plateau, 54% in City Centre, 53% in Central Coquitlam, and 52% in Northeast Coquitlam vs. 35% in West Coquitlam).

Citizens continue to feel positive about the direction that quality of life is taking. Overall, 48% of residents feel the quality of life in Coquitlam has ‘stayed the same’ over the past five years. Among those noticing a change, more say ‘improved’ (33%) than ‘worsened’ (18%), resulting in a net momentum score of +15 percentage points. Again, this year’s net score is consistent with 2018 although notably higher than a decade ago (up 13 percentage points). In comparison, the municipal norm net score is -1.

•

Those living in City Centre and Westwood Plateau are more likely to say the quality of life has ‘improved’ (51% and 48% vs. 19% in West Coquitlam, 24% in Central Coquitlam, 39% in Northeast Coquitlam).

•

Residents who have lived in Coquitlam for more than 20 years are more likely to say the quality of life has ‘worsened’ (23% vs. 14% of 20 years or less).

Residents saying the quality of life has ‘improved’ attribute this to several factors, with the top open-ended responses being “growth/development” (18%), “SkyTrain/Evergreen Line” (18%), “improved transportation/roads” (13%), and “improved recreational facilities/parks” (11%).

Among those saying the quality of life has ‘worsened’, the leading open-ended reason is “growth/development” (27%), followed by “housing costs/affordable housing” (18%), “traffic/traffic congestion” (16%), and “economy/rising cost of living” (12%).

To improve Coquitlam’s quality of life, citizens suggest focusing on transportation, affordability, and parks and recreation. When asked for specific actions the City could take to improve the quality of life, citizens’ leading open-ended suggestions are “improve transportation infrastructure/roads” (10%), “improve traffic congestion/flow” (8%), “improve transit/public transportation” (8%), “affordable housing” (8%), “more green space/parks” (8%), and “improve/expand recreation facilities/programs/services” (8%). Other affordability-related mentions include “lower/reduce taxes” (5%) and “more affordable cost of living” (4%). Compared to 2018, mentions of “less density/development” are down 5 points.

17 ‒ © Ipsos

Overall Quality of Life Very good

Total Good

48%

Good

98%

49%

Poor

1%

Total Poor

Very poor

1%

2%

Don't know

<1%

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

(n=665)

(n=400)

(n=400)

(n=602)

(n=400)

(n=501)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

Total Good

98%

96%

99%

96%

98%

98%

98%

98%

98%

98%

96%

Very good

30%

41%

47%

46%

50%

51%

49%

48%

48%

48%

45%

Base: All respondents (n=500) Q2. How would you rate the overall quality of life in the City of Coquitlam today?

18 ‒ © Ipsos

NORM

Change in Quality of Life Past Five Years Improved

33%

Stayed the same

48%

NET Score (2019) Worsened

Don't know

NET Score

Improved – Worsened

18%

+15

1%

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

(n=665)

(n=400)

(n=400)

(n=602)

(n=400)

(n=501)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

+2

+8

+18

+12

+12

+10

+11

+18

+11

+15

Base: All respondents (n=500) Q3. Do you feel that the quality of life in the City of Coquitlam in the past five years has improved, stayed the same, or worsened?

19 ‒ © Ipsos

NORM -1

Reasons Quality of Life has Improved

(Among those saying the quality of life has improved) (Coded Open-Ends)

Growth/development

18%

SkyTrain/Evergreen Line

18%

Improved transportation/roads

13%

Improved recreational facilities/parks

11%

Improved economy (more jobs, businesses) New/improved shopping

4%

Top Mentions (2018) (n=169)

SkyTrain/Evergreen Line

26%

3%

Improved recreational facilities/parks

16%

Community planning

3%

Growth/development

12%

More events/activities

3%

New/improved services

3%

Good/better quality of life

Improved/expanded infrastructure

2%

City Council/staff

2%

None/nothing

2%

Don't know

<1%

Note: Mentions <2% not shown.

Base: Those saying the quality of life has improved (n=165) Q4. Why do you think the quality of life has improved?

20 â&#x20AC;&#x2019; Š Ipsos

6%

Reasons Quality of Life has Worsened

(Among those saying the quality of life has worsened) (Coded Open-Ends)

Growth/development

27%

Housing costs/affordable housing

18%

Traffic/traffic congestion

16%

Economy/rising cost of living

12%

Impacts of construction on community

6%

Quality/level of public transportation Crime/community safety/policing Condition of roads/streets

4% 3%

Taxes/increased taxes

1%

Quality/level of community infrastructure

1%

Environmental issues

1%

Lack of recreation/entertainment

1%

Other Don't know *Small base size, interpret with caution.

Base: Those saying the quality of life has worsened (n=93)* Q5. Why do you think the quality of life has worsened?

21 â&#x20AC;&#x2019; Š Ipsos

5%

4% 1%

Top Mentions (2018) (n=108)

Growth/development

26%

Traffic/traffic congestion

18%

Housing costs/affordable housing

14%

Suggestions for Improving Quality of Life (Coded Open-Ends, Multiple Responses Allowed)

Improve transportation infrastructure/roads

10%

Improve traffic congestion/flow

8%

Improve transit/public transportation

8%

Affordable housing

8%

More green space/parks

8%

Affordable housing

Improve/expand recreation facilities/programs/services

8%

Improve traffic congestion/flow

9%

Less density/development

9%

Improve transit/public transportation

9%

More green space/parks

8%

Lower/reduce taxes

5%

Homelessness

5%

Less density/development

4%

Improve community safety

4%

More affordable cost of living

4%

Improve schools/build more schools

(n=500)

19% 4%

Note: Mentions <3% not shown.

Base: All respondents (n=500) Q6. Thinking about all of the different things that contribute to the quality of life in Coquitlam, what specific actions do you think the City could take to improve the quality of life?

Anything else?

22 â&#x20AC;&#x2019; Š Ipsos

11%

3%

None/nothing Don't know

Top Mentions (2018)

Significantly higher/ lower than 2018.

ISSUE AGENDA

23 ‒ © Ipsos

Important Community Issues

(Coded Open-Ends, Multiple Responses Allowed) Transportation continues to top the issue agenda. Overall, 34% of citizens identify transportation as an important local issue on an open-ended basis. This includes mentions of “traffic congestion” (12%), “quality/level of public transit” (10%), “condition of streets/roads” (6%), “transportation (general)” (6%), “electric vehicles (services, charging stations, etc.)” (1%), and “road safety” (1%). Transportation has consistently been the leading top-of-mind community issue since 2003 and this year’s results are similar to 2018. Transportation mentions in Coquitlam are also on par with the municipal norm.

•

Transportation mentions are statistically consistent across all key demographic segments.

Social issues have stabilized. Following transportation, the next most important local issue is social (25%). The single biggest social issue is “housing/lack of affordable housing” (18%). In fact, “housing/lack of affordable housing” is the most frequently mentioned issue overall when responses are not categorized into the broader thematic Nets. Other social issues include “poverty/homelessness” (6%), “drugs” (1%), “affordable daycare” (1%), and “seniors issues” (1%). While social issues have been a growing concern over the past few years, the emphasis placed on social issues has stabilized and this year’s results are statistically consistent with 2018. Social mentions in Coquitlam are also on par with the municipal norm.

•

Social mentions are higher among those living in West Coquitlam, City Centre, and Central Coquitlam (32%, 31%, and 24% vs. 9% in Westwood Plateau, 16% in Northeast Coquitlam) and those not living in single, detached houses (36% vs. 21% of those in single, detached houses).

Growth and development rounds out citizens’ top three community issues. Overall, 15% of citizens mention issues related to growth and development, including “population growth” (6%), “level of development” (5%), “growth/development (general)” (3%), and “monster/mega houses” (1%). Mentions of growth and development are on par with both 2018 and the municipal norm.

•

Growth and development mentions are statistically consistent across all key demographic segments.

24 ‒ © Ipsos

Important Community Issues

(Coded Open-Ends, Multiple Responses Allowed) TOTAL MENTIONS

First mention

TOTAL MENTIONS Transportation (NET)

24%

Social (NET)

25%

11%

15%

6%

Taxation/municipal gov't spending (NET) Parks, recreation, & culture (NET)

4%

Education (NET)

4%

10%

6%

Crime (NET)

3%

Environment (NET)

3%

8% 7% 6% 5% 4%

Total Mentions 34%

18%

Growth & development (NET)

Municipal gov't services (NET)

Second mention

NORM

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2016

2017

2018

2019

(n=665) (n=400) (n=400) (n=602) (n=400) (n=501) (n=500) (n=500) (n=500) (n=500)

34%

41%

35%

40%

45%

37%

39%

35%

36%

36%

34%

22%

7%

7%

5%

8%

5%

8%

17%

22%

27%

25%

16%

3%

5%

5%

6%

7%

10%

10%

10%

15%

15%

9%

10%

6%

10%

7%

7%

7%

9%

11%

7%

10%

7%

11%

19%

15%

14%

15%

11%

11%

6%

9%

8%

8%

4%

4%

9%

7%

6%

7%

6%

7%

7%

7%

7%

8%

13%

10%

8%

10%

9%

7%

6%

5%

6%

13%

24%

14%

13%

10%

10%

11%

8%

7%

5%

5%

4%

7%

4%

4%

5%

2%

5%

2%

4%

3%

4%

Economy (NET)

2% 3%

5%

3%

3%

2%

3%

4%

2%

1%

0%

1%

3%

Healthcare (NET)

2% 3%

4%

3%

2%

5%

4%

2%

2%

1%

6%

4%

3%

Other (NET)

6%

None/nothing Don't know

11% 11%

1%

Base: All respondents (n=500) Q1. In your view, as a resident of the City of Coquitlam, what is the most important issue facing your community, that is the one issue you feel should receive the greatest attention from your local leaders? Are there any other important local issues?

25 ‒ © Ipsos

2015

TRANSPORTATION

26 ‒ © Ipsos

Important Transportation Issues (Coded Open-Ends)

Public transportation and traffic congestion continue to be the dominant transportation issues. Recognizing that transportation is an important local issue, the survey asked residents to identify (on an open-ended basis) what they see as the biggest transportation issue facing Coquitlam today. The two most frequently mentioned issues are “quality/level of public transportation” (35%) and “traffic/traffic congestion” (29%). All other transportation issues are mentioned by less than 10% of residents. Mentions of public transportation are up 5 points from 2018.

•

Younger residents are more likely to mention “quality/level of public transportation” (58% of 18-34 years vs. 23% of 55+ years, 28% of 35-54 years).

Conversely, those who are 35+ years are more likely to mention “traffic/traffic congestion” (includes 40% of 35-54 years and 33% of 55+ years vs. 8% of 18-34 years).

•

Mentions of “traffic/traffic congestion” are also higher among men (34% vs. 24% of women), those living in households with children under the age of 18 (38% vs. 24% of those without children at home), and employed residents (34% vs. 20% of those who are not currently employed).

27 ‒ © Ipsos

Important Transportation Issues (Coded Open-Ends)

Quality/level of public transportation

35%

Traffic/traffic congestion

29%

Condition of roads

7%

Capacity of roads

5%

Evergreen Line/SkyTrain

5%

Ride sharing options

1%

Parking

1%

Construction

(n=500)

Traffic/traffic congestion

33%

1%

Quality/level of public transportation

30%

Transit fares/cost

1%

Capacity of roads

Cab/taxi service

1%

Unsafe driving

1%

Other

Don't know

5%

4%

None/nothing

10% 1%

Base: All respondents (n=500) Q19. In your opinion, what is the biggest transportation issue facing the City of Coquitlam today?

28 â&#x20AC;&#x2019; Š Ipsos

Top Mentions (2018)

Significantly higher/ lower than 2018.

CITY SERVICES

29 ‒ © Ipsos

Satisfaction with City Services Overall satisfaction with City services remains high. A strong majority (96%) of citizens say they are satisfied with the overall level and quality of services provided by the City of Coquitlam (46% ‘very satisfied’, 50% ‘somewhat satisfied’). Overall satisfaction (combined ‘very/somewhat satisfied’ responses) is consistent with 2018 although the percentage saying ‘very satisfied’ is up 7 percentage points this year, representing a new all-time high. This is also higher than the municipal norm (46% ‘very satisfied’ in Coquitlam vs. 35% ‘very satisfied’ norm).

•

Residents who are more likely to say ‘very satisfied’ are older (53% of 55+ years vs. 42% of 35-54 years, 43% of 18-34 years) and live in Westwood Plateau, City Centre, or Central Coquitlam (55%, 52%, and 50% vs. 37% in West Coquitlam, 39% in Northeast Coquitlam).

Satisfaction extends to the delivery of specific services. Of the evaluated services, the highest satisfaction scores (combined ‘very/somewhat satisfied’ responses) go to fire services (97%), public works, including drinking water quality and sewers (97%), parks, trails, and other green space (96%), and police services (96%). All four of these services also receive strong ‘very satisfied’ ratings. A large majority of residents also say they are satisfied with sports fields (92%), recycling and garbage services (91%), and recreational and cultural opportunities (90%). In comparison, road maintenance (81%) and neighbourhood planning (75%) score lower, both overall and in intensity.

•

Satisfaction with neighbourhood planning is lower in West Coquitlam (59% vs. 88% in City Centre, 84% in Westwood Plateau, 80% in Central Coquitlam, 75% in Northeast Coquitlam) and those who have lived in Coquitlam for more than 20 years (70% vs. 80% of 20 years or less).

Satisfaction with most services is consistent with 2018. The one exception is recycling and garbage services, which is up 5 points this year.

Satisfaction is also largely on par with the municipal norm. The one exception is police services, which is rated more satisfactory in Coquitlam (96% in Coquitlam vs. 89% norm).

30 ‒ © Ipsos

Overall Satisfaction with City Services Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Not very satisfied

Total Satisfied

46%

50%

Total Not Satisfied

3%

Not at all satisfied

1%

Don't know

<1%

96%

3%

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

(n=665)

(n=400)

(n=400)

(n=602)

(n=400)

(n=501)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

Total Satisfied

95%

95%

96%

94%

97%

96%

97%

95%

94%

96%

93%

Very satisfied

25%

34%

34%

37%

44%

39%

37%

39%

39%

46%

35%

Base: All respondents (n=500) Q8. Now, please rate how satisfied you are with the overall level and quality of services provided by the City of Coquitlam.

31 â&#x20AC;&#x2019; Š Ipsos

NORM

Significantly higher/ lower than 2018.

Satisfaction with Specific City Services TOTAL SATISFIED TOTAL SATISFIED

Very satisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Fire services

Total Satisfied

NORM

61%

Police services

57%

2011

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

(n=665) (n=400) (n=400) (n=602) (n=400) (n=501) (n=500) (n=500) (n=500) (n=500)

95%

96%

95%

93%

96%

98%

96%

98%

98%

98%

97%

97%

98%

97%

97%

98%

98%

98%

98%

98%

98%

98%

97%

96%

95%

93%

95%

94%

96%

97%

97%

96%

96%

97%

96%

96%

89%

90%

93%

92%

92%

95%

93%

95%

96%

96%

96%

66%

Parks, trails, & other green space

2010

97%

75%

Public works, incl. drinking water quality & sewers

2009

Sports fields

47%

92%

91%

89%

89%

90%

92%

94%

93%

93%

95%

92%

92%

Recycling & garbage services

47%

91%

89%

76%

88%

84%

88%

92%

88%

91%

88%

86%

91%

90%

90%

90%

91%

91%

92%

93%

93%

94%

90%

92%

90%

78%

72%

74%

71%

76%

83%

80%

81%

74%

83%

81%

77%

80%

79%

68%

78%

80%

77%

79%

77%

75%

75%

Recreational & cultural opportunities

Road maintenance Neighbourhood planning

35% 23%

19%

81%

75%

Base: All respondents (n=500) Q8. How satisfied are you with each of the following services? (Scale: very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, not very satisfied, not at all satisfied)

32 â&#x20AC;&#x2019; Š Ipsos

Significantly higher/ lower than 2018.

Importance of Specific City Services All of the evaluated services are important to citizens. Of the nine evaluated services, eight receive an importance score (combined ‘very/somewhat important’ responses) higher than 90%. Moreover, many of these services (particularly those relating to public health and safety) receive high ‘very important’ scores.

•

Public works, including drinking water quality and sewers (99% important)

•

Fire services (99% important)

•

Recycling and garbage services (98% important)

•

Road maintenance (98% important)

•

Police services (97% important)

•

Parks, trails, and other green space (96% important)

•

Neighbourhood planning (94% important)

•

Recreational and cultural opportunities (94% important)

The one service receiving a relatively lower importance score is sports fields (88%), although this is still important to a large majority of residents.

•

Sports fields are more important to those living in Northeast Coquitlam and West Coquitlam (94% and 92% vs. 82% in City Centre, 87% in Westwood Plateau, 88% in Central Coquitlam).

Compared to 2018, residents this year attach a greater importance to both recycling and garbage services (up 5 points) and sports fields (up 8 points).

The importance of most services is on par with the municipal norm. The one exception is sports fields, which is rated more important in Coquitlam (88% in Coquitlam vs. 82% norm).

33 ‒ © Ipsos

Importance of Specific City Services TOTAL IMPORTANT TOTAL IMPORTANT

Very important

Somewhat important

Total Imporant

NORM

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

(n=665) (n=400) (n=400) (n=602) (n=400) (n=501) (n=500) (n=500) (n=500) (n=500)

Public works, incl. drinking water quality & sewers

87%

99%

99%

99%

98%

95%

99%

99%

99%

98%

99%

99%

99%

Fire services

85%

99%

99%

98%

99%

97%

98%

98%

98%

98%

99%

98%

99%

98%

97%

98%

98%

98%

95%

96%

96%

98%

97%

93%

98%

98%

99%

99%

96%

96%

97%

97%

98%

98%

99%

98%

98%

97%

98%

98%

97%

97%

96%

98%

99%

99%

99%

97%

97%

96%

97%

95%

94%

93%

96%

95%

96%

97%

97%

96%

96%

94%

94%

91%

88%

86%

90%

93%

92%

93%

94%

93%

94%

94%

92%

92%

89%

90%

90%

91%

91%

92%

94%

90%

94%

82%

83%

83%

82%

84%

84%

86%

84%

81%

80%

88%

Recycling & garbage services

74%

Road maintenance

68%

Police services

81%

Parks, trails, & other green space

65%

Neighbourhood planning Recreational & cultural opportunities Sports fields

59% 47%

37%

88%

Base: All respondents (n=500) Q7. I am going to read a list of City of Coquitlam services provided to you. Please rate how important each one is to you on a scale of very important, somewhat important, not very important, or not at all important.

34 â&#x20AC;&#x2019; Š Ipsos

Significantly higher/ lower than 2018.

Action Grid An Importance versus Satisfaction Action Grid was plotted to better understand the City of Coquitlam’s perceived strengths and areas for improvement. This analysis simultaneously displays the perceived value (e.g., importance) of the City’s services and how well the City is seen to be performing (e.g., satisfaction) in each area.

Action Grids are a relative type of analysis, meaning that services are scored relative to one another. As such, there will always be areas of strength and areas for improvement.

Individual services would fall into one of four categories: •

Primary Strengths represent services where the City is performing well and are of value to citizens.

Efforts should be made to maintain high levels of satisfaction with these key services.

•

Primary Areas for Improvement represent services where the City is performing relatively less well but are still of value to citizens. Delivery of these key services could be improved. They also represent the best opportunities for improving overall satisfaction with City services.

•

Secondary Strengths represent services where the City is performing well but are of lesser value to citizens. These services can be considered as ‘low maintenance’; while maintaining positive perceptions would be beneficial, they are of lower priority than other areas.

•

Secondary Areas for Improvement represent services where the City is performing relatively less well and are also of lesser value to citizens. Depending on available resources and priorities, the City may or may not decide to make a targeted effort to improve performance in these lower priority areas.

These could also be considered longer-term action items to be addressed when resources permit.

35 ‒ © Ipsos

Action Grid STRENGTHS The City of Coquitlam has three PRIMARY STRENGTHS including public works, fire services, and police services.

The City’s one SECONDARY STRENGTH is sports fields.

Parks, trails, and other green space is also one of the City’s strengths although cannot be classified as a primary or secondary strength (sits on the edge of each).

AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT The City of Coquitlam’s one PRIMARY AREA FOR IMPROVEMENT is road maintenance.

The City has two SECONDARY AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT including neighbourhood planning and recreational and cultural opportunities.

NEITHER STRENGTHS NOR AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT Recycling and garbage services are highly important to residents but cannot be classified as either a strength or an area for improvement, currently sitting on the edge of each.

36 ‒ © Ipsos

Action Grid 100%

Primary Areas for Improvement

Road maintenance

Primary Strengths Public works Fire services

Recycling & garbage services

Police services

96%

IMPORTANCE

Neighborhood planning

Parks, trails, & other green space

Recreational & cultural opportunities

Sports fields

Secondary Areas for Improvement 80% 70%

Secondary Strengths 91%

SATISFACTION 37 â&#x20AC;&#x2019; Š Ipsos

FINANCIAL PLANNING

38 ‒ © Ipsos

Value for Taxes and Balancing Taxation/Service Delivery Levels Perceptions of the City’s value for taxes remain high. The majority (88%) of citizens say they receive good value for their municipal tax dollars (26% ‘very good value’, 62% ‘good value’). This year’s results are statistically consistent with 2018 although the percentage saying ‘very good value’ has been steadily increasing over the past few years and is now 6 points higher than 2016. Perceptions of the City’s value for taxes are on par with the municipal norm.

•

Older residents are more likely to say they receive good value (combined ‘very/fairly good value’ responses) for their municipal tax dollars (93% of 55+ years vs. 80% of 18-34 years, 89% of 35-54 year).

Citizens continue to prefer tax increases over service cuts. When given the choice between increased taxes or reduced services, 59% of citizens opt for tax increases while 29% say they would prefer service cuts. Specifically, 26% say ‘increase taxes to enhance or expand services’ and 33% say ‘increase taxes to maintain services at current levels’ compared to 20% saying ‘cut services to maintain current tax level’ and 9% saying ‘cut services to reduce taxes’. While citizens have demonstrated a clear preference for tax increases over service cuts for several years, this year’s results point to a strengthening of this position (compared to 2018, tax increases is up 10 points while service cuts is down 10 points). Coquitlam residents’ tolerance for tax increases is on par with the municipal norm.

•

Younger residents are more likely to opt for increased taxes over service cuts (73% of 18-34 years vs. 52% of 35-54 years, 57% of 55+ years).

•

Conversely, a preference for service cuts is higher among those who are 35-54 years of age (37% vs. 19% of 18-34 years, 29% of 55+ years).

39 ‒ © Ipsos

Value for Taxes Very good value

✓

Fairly good value

88%

62%

Fairly poor value



Total Good Value

26%

Total Poor Value

6%

Very poor value

3%

Don't know

3%

10%

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

(n=665)

(n=400)

(n=400)

(n=602)

(n=400)

(n=501)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

Total Good Value

86%

81%

81%

83%

88%

88%

86%

86%

88%

88%

85%

Very good value

20%

17%

18%

23%

23%

22%

20%

21%

24%

26%

22%

Base: All respondents (n=500) Q9. Thinking about all the programs and services you receive from the City of Coquitlam, would you say that overall you get good value or poor value for your tax dollars? (Is that very or fairly good/poor value?)

40 ‒ © Ipsos

NORM

Balancing Taxation and Service Delivery Levels INCREASE TAXES to enhance or expand services INCREASE TAXES to maintain services at current levels CUT SERVICES to maintain current tax level

59%

33%

20%

CUT SERVICES to reduce taxes

Total Cut Services

29%

9%

None Don't know

Total Increase Taxes

26%

10% 2%

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

(n=665)

(n=400)

(n=400)

(n=602)

(n=400)

(n=501)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

Total Increase Taxes

46%

46%

45%

43%

48%

53%

54%

51%

49%

59%

56%

Total Cut Services

41%

44%

46%

43%

41%

34%

34%

38%

39%

29%

33%

Base: All respondents (n=500) Q10. Municipal property taxes are the primary way to pay for services provided by the City of Coquitlam. Due to the increased cost of maintaining current service levels and infrastructure, the City of Coquitlam must balance taxation and service delivery levels. To deal with this situation, which one of the following four options would you most like the City of Coquitlam to pursue?

41 â&#x20AC;&#x2019; Š Ipsos

NORM

Significantly higher/ lower than 2018.

PARKS, RECREATION, AND CULTURE

42 ‒ © Ipsos

Parks, Recreation, and Culture Priorities Citizens’ top three priorities for parks, recreation, and culture are neighbourhood parks, community centres, and trails. When it comes to investing in parks, recreation, and culture over the next five years, citizens attach the greatest importance (combined ‘very/somewhat important’ responses) to neighbourhood parks, including playgrounds and community gardens (95%), community centres, including senior and youth facilities (91%), and hiking, walking, and biking trails (90%). These three priorities also receive high ‘very important’ scores. Other important priorities include public festivals and community events (89%), swimming pools (84%), and sports fields and outdoor courts (84%). This is followed by performing arts and theatre (78%) and arena facilities for ice sports, curling, and lacrosse (75%). In comparison, citizens place less emphasis on indoor racquet and court facilities (60%), although these are still important to the majority of residents. This year’s results are statistically consistent with 2018.

•

Community centres are more important to women (96% vs. 86% of men) and older residents (94% of 55+ years vs. 88% of 35-54 years, 90% of 18-34 years).

•

Hiking, walking, and biking trails are more important to those who are 35-54 years of age (94% vs. 85% of 55+ years, 92% of 18-34 years), those who have lived in Coquitlam for 20 years or less (95% vs. 85% of more than 20 years), and those living in households with children under the age of 18 (96% vs. 88% of those without children at home).

•

Public festivals and community events are more important to younger residents (96% of 18-34 years vs. 83% of 55+ years, 89% of 35-54 years).

•

Swimming pools are more important to women (88% vs. 80% of men), those who are 35-54 years of age (88% vs. 80% of 55+ years, 82% of 18-34 years), and those living in households with children under the age of 18 (94% vs. 79% of those without children at home).

•

Sports fields and outdoor courts are more important to those who are 35-54 years of age (88% vs. 79% of 55+ years, 83% of 18-34 years), those who have lived in Coquitlam for 20 years or less (88% vs. 78% of more than 20 years), and those living in households with children under the age of 18 (93% vs. 79% of those without children at home).

•

Performing arts and theatre are more important to women (84% vs. 71% of men).

•

Arena facilities are more important to women (80% vs. 70% of men), those living in West Coquitlam (80% vs. 65% in City Centre, 73% in Westwood Plateau, 78% in Northeast Coquitlam, 78% in Central Coquitlam), and those living in households with children under the age of 18 (82% vs. 71% of those without children at home).

43 ‒ © Ipsos

Parks, Recreation, and Culture Priorities TOTAL IMPORTANT TOTAL IMPORTANT

Very important

Neighbourhood parks incl. playgrounds & community gardens

2016

2017

2018

2019

(n=501)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

91%

94%

95%

91%

95%

91%

95%

93%

93%

92%

91%

90%

88%

89%

91%

89%

90%

89%

81%

83%

87%

88%

89%

84%

84%

85%

86%

82%

84%

84%

82%

81%

80%

80%

84%

77%

75%

80%

75%

78%

74%

71%

69%

72%

75%

60%

59%

59%

59%

60%

95%

65%

Hiking, walking, & biking trails

62%

Public festivals & community events

37%

Swimming pools

44%

Sports fields & outdoor courts

38% 29%

Arena facilities for ice sports, curling, & lacrosse Indoor racquet & court facilities

2015

Total Imporant

61%

Community centres, incl. senior & youth facilities

Performing arts & theatre

Somewhat important

78%

33%

19%

75%

60%

Base: All respondents (n=500) Q21. When it comes to parks, recreation, and culture, the City of Coquitlam has many different investment options over the next five years. Please tell me how important each of the following is to you personally using a scale of very important, somewhat important, not very important, or not at all important.

44 â&#x20AC;&#x2019; Š Ipsos

COMMUNICATION AND PUBLIC CONSULTATION

45 ‒ © Ipsos

Information Needs and Communication Preferences (Coded Open-Ends, Multiple Mentions Allowed)

Citizens continue to be interested in receiving a variety of information from the City. The two most frequently mentioned information needs (coded openends) are “community infrastructure (improvements, updates)” (19%) and “City spending/budgets” (14%). Other top mentions include “housing/development” (8%), “community events/activities” (6%), “general city news/updates” (6%), and “transparency/accountability” (5%). Nearly four-in-ten (38%) residents indicate they have no immediate information needs, with 33% saying “none/nothing” and 5% saying “don’t know”. This year’s results are similar to 2018.

•

Younger residents are more likely to mention “community infrastructure” (26% of 18-34 years vs. 14% of 55+ years, 20% of 35-54 years).

Email remains the best way of communicating information to citizens. Four-in-ten (40%) citizens say “email” is the best way for the City to communicate information to them (coded open-ends). This is followed by “mail” (25%), “City website” (25%), “newsletter/pamphlet/flyer/brochure” (16%), “newspaper” (14%), and “social media (Twitter, Facebook, etc.)” (13%). Mentions of “City website” are up 7 points this year. The strong preference for “email” communications is consistent with the municipal norm.

•

“Email” is more likely to be mentioned by those who are 35-54 years of age (47% vs. 32% of 55+ years, 40% of 18-34 years). Conversely, “newspaper” is more likely to be mentioned by older residents (21% of 55+ years vs. 9% of 35-54 years, 10% of 18-34 years).

•

“City website” is more likely to be mentioned by those living in households with children under the age of 18 (31% vs. 21% of those without children at home).

•

“Social media” is more likely to be mentioned by younger residents (23% of 18-34 years vs. 6% of 55+ years, 11% of 35-54 years) and those living in Westwood Plateau (24% vs. 9% in West Coquitlam, 10% in City Centre, 11% in Central Coquitlam, 18% in Northeast Coquitlam).

If citizens needed to contact the City, there is a strong preference for reaching out via telephone or email. When contacting the City, 78% of residents say they would prefer to use the “telephone” and 54% mention “email”. The next most frequently mentioned responses are “in-person” (14%) and “City website” (11%). “Telephone” mentions are up 6 points this year.

•

“Email” is mentioned more often by those who are <55 years of age (includes 60% of 18-34 years and 58% of 35-54 years vs. 45% of 55+ years) and those living in households with children under the age of 18 (66% vs. 48% of those without children at home).

46 ‒ © Ipsos

Information Needs

(Coded Open-Ends, Multiple Mentions Allowed)

Community infrastructure (improvements, updates)

19%

City spending/budgets

14%

Housing/development

8%

Community events/activities

6%

General city news/updates

6%

Transparency/accountability

(n=500)

5%

Garbage/recycling

4%

City services (unspecified)

4%

Recreational events/activities

3%

Continue to provide information on the website

3%

Zoning

2%

Newspaper/print

2%

Transit/public transportation

2%

Cultural events activities

2%

None/nothing Don't know

Top Mentions (2018)

33% 5%

Note: Mentions <2% not shown.

Base: All respondents (n=500) Q11. Thinking about your information needs, what kinds of information do you want the City of Coquitlam to provide you with? Any others?

47 â&#x20AC;&#x2019; Š Ipsos

Community infrastructure (improvements, updates)

18%

City spending/budgets

18%

Housing/development

7%

Preferred Methods of Receiving City Information (Coded Open Ends, Multiple Mentions Allowed)

Email

40%

Mail

25%

City website

25%

Newsletter/pamphlet/flyer/brochure

16%

Newspaper

14%

Social media (Twitter, Facebook, etc.)

13%

Internet (unspecified)

6%

Telephone

6%

TV

3%

Mobile apps

3%

Text message/texting

2%

Signage/billboards/posters

2%

None/nothing Don't know

Email

36%

Mail

27%

Newspaper

22%

Top Mentions (2018) (n=500)

Email

42%

Mail

25%

City website

18%

1% 3%

Note: Mentions <2% not shown.

Base: All respondents (n=500) Q12. And what methods would be best for the City of Coquitlam to communicate information to you? Any others?

48 â&#x20AC;&#x2019; Š Ipsos

NORM Top Mentions

Significantly higher/ lower than 2018.

Preferred Methods of Contacting the City (Coded Open Ends, Multiple Mentions Allowed)

Telephone

78%

Email

54%

In-person

14%

City website Online/Internet

(n=500)

11% 3%

Social media (City Facebook or Twitter page)

1%

In writing such as by mail or fax

1%

Other

2%

None/nothing

<1%

Base: All respondents (n=500) Q13. If you needed to contact the City of Coquitlam, what contact method would you most prefer to use? Any others?

49 â&#x20AC;&#x2019; Š Ipsos

Top Mentions (2018) Telephone

72%

Email

52%

In-person

14%

Significantly higher/ lower than 2018.

Municipal Public Consultations Most citizens have not participated in any type of municipal public consultation within the past two years. Overall, 27% of citizens say they participated in a public consultation conducted on behalf of a municipality within the last two years. This could be a public consultation for any municipality, not just the City of Coquitlam.

•

Those living in West Coquitlam are more likely to say they participated in a recent municipal public consultation (41% vs. 18% in Westwood Plateau, 22% in Central Coquitlam, 23% in Northeast Coquitlam, 23% in City Centre).

The most common method of participation is attending an in-person information session or open house. Overall, 59% of those who participated in a municipal public consultation within the past two years say they attended an in-person information session or open house. The next most common methods of participation are any other type of online survey [excluding the City of Coquitlam’s Viewpoint panel survey] (49%) and phone (41%).

Citizens learned about the opportunity to provide input via a variety of channels. Among those who participated, the two most common ways (coded open-ends) of learning about the opportunity to provide input are “email” (25%) and “newspaper ad” (23%). Other top mentions include “social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram)” (18%), “City website” (15%), “word of mouth” (15%), and “mail” (14%).

Lack of time is cited as the main reason for not participating in municipal public consultations. When asked why they might choose to not take part in a municipal public consultation, 45% of citizens say “too busy/times are not convenient” (coded open-ends). The next most frequently mentioned barriers are “lack of advertising/awareness of opportunity” (20%), “not interested” (15%), and “issue does not impact me” (12%).

•

“Too busy/times are not convenient” is mentioned more often by those who are <55 years of age (includes 57% of 35-54 years and 48% of 18-34 years vs. 31% of 55+ years), those living in households with children under the age of 18 (58% vs. 39% of those without children at home), and employed residents (55% vs. 32% of those who are not currently employed).

•

“Lack of advertising/awareness of opportunity” is mentioned more often by younger residents (34% of 18-34 years vs. 13% of 55+ years, 16% of 35-54 years), those living in households without children under the age of 18 (23% vs. 13% of those with children at home), and those who are not currently employed (26% vs. 16% of employed residents).

•

“Not interested” is mentioned more often by those living in Westwood Plateau (25% vs. 12% in City Centre, 12% in Central Coquitlam, 16% in Northeast Coquitlam, 16% in West Coquitlam).

50 ‒ © Ipsos

No 73%

Yes 27%

Base: All respondents (n=500) Q13a. Have you participated in any type of public consultation including in-person, online, phone, or mail that was conducted on behalf of a municipality in the last two years? This could be a public consultation for any municipality, not just the City of Coquitlam.

51 ‒ © Ipsos

In-person information session or open house

59%

Any other type of online survey

49%

Phone

41%

Public hearing

39%

Mail

32%

Town Hall meeting

31%

The City of Coquitlam’s Viewpoint panel survey

28%

Any other type of municipal public consultation

17%

Email

DISCOVERED THROUGH…

PARTICIPATED IN MUNICIPAL PUBLIC CONSULTATION IN PAST 2 YEARS

TYPE OF MUNICIPAL PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Municipal Public Consultations

25%

Newspaper ad

23%

Social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram)

18%

City website

15%

Word of mouth

15%

Mail

14%

Phone Poster

9% 5%

Organization/association/group

2%

Don't know

2%

Base: Those saying they participated in a municipal public consultation in the last two years (n=138) Q13b. In the last two years, in which of the following ways have you participated in a municipal public consultation?

Q13c. How did you find out about the opportunity to provide input? Any others?

Note: Q13c coded open-end responses, multiple responses allowed. Mentions <2% not shown.

Reasons for Not Participating in Municipal Public Consultations (Coded Open Ends, Multiple Mentions Allowed)

Too busy/times are not convenient

45%

Lack of advertising/awareness of opportunity

20%

Not interested

15%

Issue does not impact me

12%

Ability to impact the decision Health issues

5% 3%

Do not know enough about the topics/issues

2%

Not comfortable expressing my opinions in public

2%

None/nothing

2%

Don't know

5%

Note: Mentions <2% not shown.

Base: All respondents (n=500) Q13d. What is the main reason why you might choose to NOT take part in a municipal public consultation? Anything else?

52 â&#x20AC;&#x2019; Š Ipsos

Interest in Participating in Different Methods of Public Consultation The three most appealing forms of public consultation are surveys, online feedback forms, and open houses. Of the evaluated methods, citizens demonstrate the greatest interest (combined ‘very/somewhat interested’ responses) in participating in surveys like this (74%), feedback forms on the City’s website (73%) and public open houses where residents can observe and comment on information posted on display boards (66%). A small majority also express interest in small community focus groups (55%) and community workshops where residents take part in active discussion sessions (55%).

There is less interest in mail in workbooks (45%), the City’s Facebook or Twitter page (42%), and online blogs or discussion forums (37%). For all methods of public consultation, most of those interested describe themselves as ‘somewhat’ rather than ‘very’ interested. Compared to 2018, this year’s results point to increased interest in surveys (up 7 points), online feedback forms (up 5 points), and focus groups (up 5 points).

•

Feedback forms on the City’s website are more interesting to those who are <55 years of age (includes 78% of 35-54 years and 76% of 18-34 years vs.

67% of 55+ years), those living in households with children under the age of 18 (82% vs. 69% of those without children at home), and employed residents (79% vs. 65% of those who are not currently employed).

•

Public open houses are more interesting to those who are 35+ years of age (includes 72% of 35-54 years and 69% of 55+ years vs. 54% of 18-34 years) and employed residents (71% vs. 58% of those who are not currently employed).

•

Small community focus groups are more interesting to men (61% vs. 49% of women).

•

Mail in workbooks are more interesting to those living in City Centre (58% vs. 34% in Westwood Plateau, 41% in West Coquitlam, 42% in Northeast Coquitlam, 46% in Central Coquitlam).

•

The City’s Facebook or Twitter page is more interesting to those who are <55 years of age (includes 59% of 18-34 years and 47% of 35-54 years vs. 24% of 55+ years), those who have lived in Coquitlam for 20 years or less (49% vs. 35% of more than 20 years), and those living in households with children under the age of 18 (52% vs. 37% of those without children at home).

•

Online blogs or discussion forums are more interesting to those who are <55 years of age (includes 46% of 18-34 years and 43% of 35-54 years vs. 24% of 55+ years) and those living in households with children under the age of 18 (47% vs. 32% of those without children at home).

53 ‒ © Ipsos

Interest in Participating in Different Methods of Public Consultation TOTAL INTERESTED Very interested

TOTAL INTERESTED

Surveys like this

Somewhat interested

15%

Feedback forms on the City's website

23%

Public open houses where residents can observe and comment on information posted on display boards

21%

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

(n=501)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

74%

65%

67%

68%

67%

74%

73%

68%

67%

66%

68%

73%

66%

64%

69%

64%

66%

Total Interested

66%

Small community focus groups

16%

55%

52%

48%

53%

50%

55%

Community workshops where residents take part in active discussion sessions

15%

55%

59%

52%

59%

54%

55%

38%

42%

40%

44%

45%

36%

40%

39%

41%

42%

36%

37%

38%

39%

37%

Mail in workbooks The City's Facebook or Twitter page Online blogs or discussion forums

10% 13% 8%

45% 42% 37%

Base: All respondents (n=500) Q14. How interested are you in participating in each of the following forms of public consultation on a topic that is of interest to you personally? Would you say very interested, somewhat interested, not very interested, or not at all interested?

54 â&#x20AC;&#x2019; Š Ipsos

Significantly higher/ lower than 2018.

CUSTOMER SERVICE

55 ‒ © Ipsos

City Contact and Customer Service Claimed contact with the City holds steady. Overall, 46% of citizens say they personally contacted or dealt with the City of Coquitlam or one of its employees in the last 12 months. Claimed contact is on par with both 2018 and the municipal norm.

•

Claimed contact is higher among those who are 35+ years of age (51% vs. 34% of 18-34 years) and those living in households with children under the age of 18 (56% vs. 41% of those without children at home).

Citizens have various reasons for contacting the City. Among those saying they contacted the City in the last 12 months, the most common reasons (coded open-ends) for establishing contact are “garbage/recycling collection” (12%), “pay my taxes/utilities” (9%), “bylaws” (7%), “parks/recreational facilities” (6%), and “parking” (5%). This year’s results are consistent with 2018.

The telephone is the most common method of contact. Slightly more than one-half (51%) of those who contacted the City say this contact occurred via the “telephone” (coded open-ends). Another 28% say they visited “in-person” while 13% used “email”. Again, this year’s results are consistent with 2018.

Satisfaction with the City’s customer service remains high. Overall, 88% of those who contacted the City say they are satisfied (combined ‘very/somewhat satisfied’ responses) with the overall service received. More specifically, 93% are satisfied with the courteousness of the staff, 90% are satisfied with staff’s helpfulness, 88% are satisfied with staff’s knowledge, 88% are satisfied with the ease of reaching staff, 88% are satisfied with the speed and timeliness of service, and 85% are satisfied with the ability of staff to understand your needs. In comparison, satisfaction with staff’s ability to resolve your issue scores lower (78%), although the majority still say they are satisfied with this service attribute. Satisfaction with the City’s customer service is on par with both 2018 and the municipal norm.

56 ‒ © Ipsos

Claimed Contact with City Past 12 Months

46% % Yes

% Yes

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

(n=665)

(n=400)

(n=400)

(n=602)

(n=400)

(n=501)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

44%

47%

46%

47%

52%

51%

44%

50%

50%

46%

Base: All respondents (n=500) Q15. In the last 12 months, have you personally contacted or dealt with the City of Coquitlam or one of its employees?

57 â&#x20AC;&#x2019; Š Ipsos

NORM 48%

Reason for Contacting the City

(Among those saying they contacted the City) (Coded Open-Ends)

Garbage/recycling collection

12%

Pay my taxes/utilities

9%

Bylaws

7%

Parks/recreational facilities Parking

5%

Animals/animal control

4%

Trees on property

4%

License/permit

4%

Water/drain concerns

4%

Roads (maintenance)

4%

Developments/overdevelopment

4%

Street lighting

3%

Policing/community safety

3%

Don't know Note: Mentions <3% not shown.

Base: Those saying they contacted the City (n=246) Q16. What was the main reason why you contacted the City?

58 â&#x20AC;&#x2019; Š Ipsos

6%

<1%

Top Mentions (2018) (n=264)

Garbage/recycling collection

20%

Parks/recreational facilities

8%

Pay my taxes/utilities

7%

Contact Method

(Among those saying they contacted the City) (Coded Open-Ends)

Telephone

51%

In-person

28%

Top Mentions (2018) Email

Website

59 â&#x20AC;&#x2019; Š Ipsos

6%

In writing such as by mail or fax

2%

Public gathering/ community event

<1%

Other

1%

Base: Those saying they contacted the City (n=246) Q17. How did you come into contact with the City?

(n=264)

13% Telephone

52%

In-person

23%

Email

14%

Satisfaction with Customer Service (Among those saying they contacted the City)

TOTAL SATISFIED TOTAL SATISFIED

Overall service you received

Very satisfied

Somewhat satisfied

49%

The speed and timeliness of service The ability of staff to understand your needs Staff's ability to resolve your issue

2016

2017

2018

2019

(n=207)

(n=274)

(n=247)

(n=269)

(n=264)

(n=246)

83%

89%

87%

88%

82%

87%

88%

94%

92%

93%

92%

93%

97%

93%

87%

93%

89%

89%

84%

88%

90%

88%

86%

92%

86%

87%

85%

88%

88%

88%

86%

91%

85%

86%

82%

86%

88%

88%

83%

85%

88%

85%

77%

83%

88%

87%

87%

89%

87%

83%

87%

85%

78%

80%

79%

79%

75%

77%

78%

74%

Staff's helpfulness

The ease of reaching staff

2015

93%

67%

90%

59% 55% 50% 61% 53%

NORM

88%

The courteousness of the staff

Staff's knowledge

2013

Total Satisfied

85% 78%

Base: Those saying they contacted the City (n=246) Q18. Thinking about your personal experience with the City, how satisfied are you with each of the following? (Scale: very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, not very satisfied, not at all satisfied)

60 â&#x20AC;&#x2019; Š Ipsos

WORK

61 ‒ © Ipsos

Employment Status and Location Key employment metrics are stable. Overall, 59% of citizens say they are employed either ‘full-time’ (49%) or ‘part-time’ (10%). Among those working or attending school, one-quarter (25%) say their employment or school is ‘based in Coquitlam’. These results are consistent with 2018.

•

Claimed employment is higher among those who are 35-54 years of age (86% vs. 33% of 55+ years, 56% of 18-34 years), those who have lived in Coquitlam for 20 years or less (71% vs. 45% of more than 20 years), and those living in households with children under the age of 18 (78% vs. 50% of those without children at home).

•

Women are more likely than men to say their employment or school is based in Coquitlam (32% vs. 19%).

62 ‒ © Ipsos

Employment Status Employed full-time, including self employed

49%

Employed part-time, including self employed

23%

A student

10%

A homemaker

4%

Not currently employed

4%

Total Employed

59%

10%

Retired

Other

1%

2009

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

(n=665)

(n=602)

(n=400)

(n=501)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

67%

61%

63%

60%

57%

57%

61%

59%

Base: All respondents (n=500) Q23. Which ONE of the following categories best describes your current employment status?

63 â&#x20AC;&#x2019; Š Ipsos

Total Employed

Location of Work or School

(Among those saying they are employed or attending school) Based in Coquitlam

25%

Based in a neighbouring municipality

36%

Based in Vancouver

24%

Based elsewhere in the Lower Mainland Other

Based in Coquitlam

14%

1%

2009

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

(n=450)

(n=363)

(n=265)

(n=325)

(n=330)

(n=318)

(n=308)

(n=299)

28%

30%

23%

31%

22%

28%

25%

25%

Base: Those saying they are employed or attending school (n=299) Q24. And, is your employment/school…?

64 ‒ © Ipsos

WEIGHTED SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS

65 ‒ © Ipsos

Weighted Sample Characteristics GENDER

48% Male

AGE

52%

Female

28%

OWN OR RENT

37%

18 to 34

35%

35 to 54

55 and over Own

NEIGHBOURHOOD

YEARS LIVING IN COQUITLAM 1 to 10

10%

City Centre

22%

Westwood Plateau

14%

Central Coquitlam

25%

West Coquitlam Base: All respondents (n=500)

66 ‒ © Ipsos

29%

21 to 30

31 to 40

Over 40

Single, detached house

17%

Apartment

11 to 20 Northeast

TYPE OF HOUSING

37%

20%

13%

12%

Mean 23.1 years

Rent 72%

12%

Townhouse or rowhouse

9%

Duplex, triplex, semi-detached

4%

Condominium

1%

Secondary suite

1%

Refused

81% 12% 7%

CHILDREN UNDER 18 IN HH

No 67%

Yes 33%

APPENDIX: SURVEY TRACKING

67 ‒ © Ipsos

Quality of Life OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

(n=1,200)

(n=400)

(n=400)

(n=1,201)

(n=400)

(n=400)

(n=665)

(n=400)

(n=400)

(n=602)

(n=400)

(n=501)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

Total Good

98%

97%

97%

97%

98%

95%

98%

96%

99%

96%

98%

98%

98%

98%

98%

98%

Very good

37%

38%

35%

25%

28%

29%

30%

41%

47%

46%

50%

51%

49%

48%

48%

48%

Base: All respondents Q2. How would you rate the overall quality of life in the City of Coquitlam today?

CHANGE IN QUALITY OF LIFE PAST 5 YEARS

NET Score

2003

2006

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

(n=1,200)

(n=800)

(n=665)

(n=400)

(n=400)

(n=602)

(n=400)

(n=501)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

+11

+2

+2

+8

+18

+12

+12

+10

+11

+18

+11

+15

Base: All respondents Q3. Do you feel that the quality of life in the City of Coquitlam in the past five years has improved, stayed the same, or worsened?

68 ‒ © Ipsos

Important Community Issues

(Coded Open-Ends, Multiple Responses Allowed)

TOTAL MENTIONS

2003

2004

(n=1,200) (n=400)

2005

2006

2007

(n=400) (n=1,201) (n=400)

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

(n=400)

(n=665)

(n=400)

(n=400)

(n=602)

(n=400)

(n=501)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

Transportation (NET)

47%

36%

41%

51%

35%

44%

41%

35%

40%

45%

37%

39%

35%

36%

36%

34%

Social (NET)

6%

1%

7%

6%

11%

13%

7%

7%

5%

8%

5%

8%

17%

22%

27%

25%

Growth & development (NET)

8%

7%

6%

7%

8%

11%

3%

5%

5%

6%

7%

10%

10%

10%

15%

15%

Municipal government services (NET)

3%

9%

4%

8%

4%

8%

10%

6%

10%

7%

7%

7%

9%

11%

7%

10%

Taxation/municipal government spending (NET)

12%

14%

7%

9%

9%

6%

11%

19%

15%

14%

15%

11%

11%

6%

9%

8%

Parks, recreation, culture (NET)

8%

8%

8%

14%

6%

4%

4%

4%

9%

7%

6%

7%

6%

7%

7%

7%

Education (NET)

22%

9%

11%

8%

10%

6%

8%

13%

10%

8%

10%

9%

7%

6%

5%

6%

Crime (NET)

21%

20%

22%

34%

24%

21%

24%

14%

13%

10%

10%

11%

8%

7%

5%

5%

Environment (NET)

8%

5%

4%

7%

5%

5%

7%

4%

4%

5%

2%

5%

2%

4%

3%

4%

Healthcare (NET)

5%

5%

8%

6%

3%

2%

3%

2%

5%

4%

2%

2%

1%

6%

4%

3%

Economy (NET)

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

3%

3%

2%

3%

4%

2%

1%

0%

1%

3%

Base: All respondents Q1. In your view, as a resident of the City of Coquitlam, what is the most important issue facing your community, that is the one issue you feel should receive the greatest attention from your local leaders? Are there any other important local issues?

69 â&#x20AC;&#x2019; Š Ipsos

Satisfaction with City Services THE OVERALL LEVEL AND QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF COQUITLAM 2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

(n=400)

(n=400)

(n=1,201)

(n=400)

(n=400)

(n=665)

(n=400)

(n=400)

(n=602)

(n=400)

(n=501)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

Total Satisfied

96%

93%

93%

96%

92%

95%

95%

96%

94%

97%

96%

97%

95%

94%

96%

Very satisfied

37%

36%

25%

37%

32%

25%

34%

34%

37%

44%

39%

37%

39%

39%

46%

Base: All respondents Q8. Now, please rate how satisfied you are with the overall level and quality of services provided by the City of Coquitlam.

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

(n=400)

(n=400)

(n=665)

(n=400)

(n=400)

(n=602)

(n=400)

(n=501)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

Fire services

97%

95%

96%

95%

93%

96%

98%

96%

98%

98%

98%

97%

Public works, including drinking water quality & sewers

96%

95%

97%

97%

98%

98%

98%

98%

98%

98%

98%

97%

Parks, trails, & other green space

94%

96%

93%

95%

94%

96%

97%

97%

96%

96%

97%

96%

Police services

92%

90%

90%

93%

92%

92%

95%

93%

95%

96%

96%

96%

Sports fields

89%

91%

89%

89%

90%

92%

94%

93%

93%

95%

92%

92%

Recycling & garbage services

86%

81%

76%

88%

84%

88%

92%

88%

91%

88%

86%

91%

Recreational & cultural opportunities

90%

90%

90%

91%

91%

92%

93%

93%

94%

90%

92%

90%

Road maintenance

66%

75%

72%

74%

71%

76%

83%

80%

81%

74%

83%

81%

Neighborhood planning

82%

79%

80%

79%

68%

78%

80%

77%

79%

77%

75%

75%

TOTAL SATISFIED

Base: All respondents Q8. How satisfied are you with each of the following services? (Scale: very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, not very satisfied, not at all satisfied)

70 ‒ © Ipsos

Significantly higher/ lower than 2018.

Importance of City Services 2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

(n=400)

(n=400)

(n=665)

(n=400)

(n=400)

(n=602)

(n=400)

(n=501)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

Public works, including drinking water quality & sewers

100%

100%

99%

98%

95%

99%

99%

99%

98%

99%

99%

99%

Fire services

100%

99%

98%

99%

97%

98%

98%

98%

98%

99%

98%

99%

Recycling & garbage services

98%

98%

98%

98%

98%

95%

96%

96%

98%

97%

93%

98%

Road maintenance

97%

97%

99%

96%

96%

97%

97%

98%

98%

99%

98%

98%

Police services

99%

98%

98%

97%

97%

96%

98%

99%

99%

99%

97%

97%

Parks, trails, & other green space

96%

97%

95%

94%

93%

96%

95%

96%

97%

97%

96%

96%

Neighborhood planning

92%

92%

91%

88%

86%

90%

93%

92%

93%

94%

93%

94%

Recreational & cultural opportunities

93%

90%

92%

89%

90%

90%

91%

91%

92%

94%

90%

94%

Sports fields

83%

82%

83%

83%

82%

84%

84%

86%

84%

81%

80%

88%

TOTAL IMPORTANT

Base: All respondents Q7. I am going to read a list of City of Coquitlam services provided to you. Please rate how important each one is to you on a scale of very important, somewhat important, not very important, or not at all important.

71 â&#x20AC;&#x2019; Š Ipsos

Significantly higher/ lower than 2018.

Financial Planning

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

(n=400)

(n=400)

(n=1,201)

(n=400)

(n=400)

(n=665)

(n=400)

(n=400)

(n=602)

(n=400)

(n=501)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

Total Good Value

86%

85%

83%

86%

85%

86%

81%

81%

83%

88%

88%

86%

86%

88%

88%

Very good value

25%

27%

22%

21%

22%

20%

17%

18%

23%

23%

22%

20%

21%

24%

26%

Base: All respondents Q9. Thinking about all the programs and services you receive from the City of Coquitlam, would you say that overall you get good value or poor value for your tax dollars? (Is that very or fairly good/poor value?)

2003

2004

(n=1,200) (n=400)

2005

2006

2007

(n=400) (n=1,201) (n=400)

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2015

2016

(n=400)

(n=665)

(n=400)

(n=400)

(n=602)

(n=400)

(n=501)

(n=500)

2017

2018

(n=500) (n=500)

2019

(n=500)

Total Increase Taxes

58%

48%

47%

55%

58%

55%

46%

46%

45%

43%

48%

53%

54%

51%

49%

59%

Total Cut Services

32%

37%

30%

35%

31%

26%

41%

44%

46%

43%

41%

34%

34%

38%

39%

29%

Base: All respondents Q10. Municipal property taxes are the primary way to pay for services provided by the City of Coquitlam. Due to the increased cost of maintaining current service levels and infrastructure, the City of Coquitlam must balance taxation and service delivery levels. To deal with this situation, which one of the following four options would you most like the City of Coquitlam to pursue?

72 â&#x20AC;&#x2019; Š Ipsos

Significantly higher/ lower than 2018.

Customer Service CLAIMED CONTACT

% Yes

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

(n=400)

(n=665)

(n=400)

(n=400)

(n=602)

(n=400)

(n=501)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

41%

44%

47%

46%

47%

52%

51%

44%

50%

50%

46%

Base: All respondents Q15. In the last 12 months, have you personally contacted or dealt with the City of Coquitlam or one of its employees?

SATISFACTION WITH CUSTOMER SERVICE 2008

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

(n=180)

(n=207)

(n=274)

(n=247)

(n=269)

(n=264)

(n=246)

Overall service you received

75%

89%

87%

88%

82%

87%

88%

The courteousness of the staff

89%

92%

93%

92%

93%

97%

93%

Staff's helpfulness

82%

93%

89%

89%

84%

88%

90%

Staff's knowledge

80%

92%

86%

87%

85%

88%

88%

The ease of reaching staff

82%

91%

85%

86%

82%

86%

88%

The speed and timeliness of service

74%

85%

88%

85%

77%

83%

88%

The ability of staff to understand your needs

84%

87%

89%

87%

83%

87%

85%

Staff's ability to resolve your issue

71%

80%

79%

79%

75%

77%

78%

Base: Those saying they contacted the City Q18. Thinking about your personal experience with the City, how satisfied are you with each of the following? (Scale: very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, not very satisfied, not at all satisfied)

73 ‒ © Ipsos