2021 Citizen Survey

2021 CITIZEN SURVEY City of Coquitlam Telephone Survey – Final Report September 21, 2021

© 2021 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

4

Weighted Sample Characteristics

2

Executive Summary

5

Appendix: Survey Tracking

3

Detailed Findings • • • • • • • • • •

2 ‒ © Ipsos

COVID-19 Quality of Life Issue Agenda Transportation City Services Financial Planning Parks, Recreation, and Culture Communication and Public Engagement Customer Service Work

INTRODUCTION

3 ‒ © Ipsos

Background and Objectives This report presents the findings of the City of Coquitlam’s 2021 Citizen Survey. The Citizen Survey is typically conducted annually and obtains residents’ feedback on City services and priorities. Ipsos has been conducting the City of Coquitlam’s Citizen Survey since 2003. No survey was conducted in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Key research topics include:

•

Important community issues

•

Quality of life

•

City services (importance, satisfaction)

•

Financial planning

•

Communication and community engagement

•

Customer service

•

Transportation

•

Parks, recreation, and culture

•

Work

In addition, the 2021 survey also measures the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on residents.

Insight gained by this research helps guide corporate planning processes at the City including budgeting, strategic planning, and business planning.

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. Households with members who work for the City, an advertising agency, the media, and/or a market research firm were excluded from the survey via an upfront screening question.

All interviews were conducted between May 25 and June 11, 2021.

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.

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

5 ‒ © Ipsos

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

6 ‒ © 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 significant differences between 2021 and 2019.

For some questions, survey tracking dates as far back as 2003. While this report primarily focuses on trends over the past decade (e.g., 2011-2021), the complete year-over-year survey results for questions with data prior to 2011 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 and are thus based primarily on pre-pandemic data. 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 IMPACT OF COVID-19 The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted many aspects of residents’ everyday life. The greatest negative impact has been on residents’ mental health (59%) and personal relationships (50%). The pandemic has also taken a toll on residents’ physical health (44%), work and career (38%), and household income (29%).

QUALITY OF LIFE Overall perceptions of quality of life remain strong. Despite the challenges brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly all (97%) citizens continue to rate Coquitlam’s overall quality of life as ‘very good’ (48%) or ‘good’ (49%). This year’s results are similar to 2019.

Citizens continue to feel positive about the direction that quality of life is taking. Overall, 46% 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’ (35%) than ‘worsened’ (18%), resulting in a net momentum score of +17 percentage points. This year’s net score is statistically consistent with 2019.

•

Those saying the quality of life has ‘improved’ point to “improved recreational facilities/parks” (22%), “improved transportation/roads” (15%), and “growth/development” (11%). Mentions of “improved recreational facilities/parks” are up 11 points this year as compared to 2019.

•

Those saying the quality of life has ‘worsened’ mainly attribute this to “growth/development” (32%), “crime/community safety/policing” (23%), and “traffic/traffic congestion” (13%). Mentions of “crime/community safety/policing” are up 19 points this year as compared to 2019.

Citizens offer a number of suggestions for improving Coquitlam’s quality of life. Suggestions span a wide range of topics, with no single response standing out from the rest. Overall, the three most frequently mentioned open-ended suggestions are “more green space/parks” (9%), “less density/development” (8%), and “improve/expand recreation facilities/programs/services” (8%). Other suggestions include “affordable housing” (7%), “improve community safety” (6%), and “improve transportation infrastructure/roads” (6%). Notably, three-in-ten (31%) decline to offer any specific suggestions for improvement (includes 27% saying “none/nothing” and 4% saying “don’t know”).

9 ‒ © Ipsos

Executive Summary ISSUE AGENDA Social issues replace transportation as the most important top-of-mind community issue. For the first time, social issues sit atop the public issue agenda, mentioned by 23% of residents on an open-ended basis. This includes “housing/lack of affordable housing” (13%), “poverty/homelessness” (6%), “racism” (1%), “seniors' issues” (1%), “drugs” (1%), “affordable daycare” (<1%) and “other social mentions” (2%). Mentions of social issues are on par with 2019.

Transportation-related mentions are down this year. Following social issues, the next most important local issue is transportation (15%). This includes mentions of “traffic congestion” (5%), “transportation (general)” (3%), “condition of streets/roads” (3%), “quality/level of public transit” (2%), “parking” (1%), “road safety” (<1%), and “other transportation mentions” (<1%). Transportation-related mentions are down 19 points this year, dropping it from the top of the public issue agenda for the first time since the City began tracking this metric in 2003. The decline in transportation mentions may be at least partly attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic, with more people working remotely and making fewer personal trips outside the home.

Public safety rounds out citizens’ top three community issues. Overall, 13% of citizens mention issues related to public safety, including “crime (general)” (5%), “community safety” (4%), and “policing/law enforcement” (3%). Mentions of public safety are up 8 points this year.

Fewer residents mention growth and development-related issues this year. While growth and development was one of the top three issues in 2019, it is only mentioned by 7% of residents this year (down 8 points). Specific related mentions include “growth/development (general)” (3%), “population growth” (3%), “level of development” (2%), and “other growth and development mentions” (<1%).

COVID-19 sits further down the public issue agenda. Fewer than one-in-ten (6%) mention COVID-19 as an important local issue on a top-of-mind basis.

This may be a sign that residents see the pandemic as more of a federal or provincial responsibility. Even if this is seen as a municipal responsibility, residents may feel that the City is handing the pandemic reasonably well and may believe there is not much more the City can do in this regard. It may also be possible that COVID-19 is fading as a local issue as more people are vaccinated and case counts drop.

Nearly one-quarter decline to identify any important community issues. Overall, 23% of residents are unable to identify any important community issues, including 21% saying “none/nothing” and 2% saying “don’t know”.

TRANSPORTATION Traffic congestion and public transportation remain the top transportation issues. Residents identify “traffic/traffic congestion” (26%) and “quality/level of public transportation” (23%, down 12 points) as the leading transportation issues. One-in-five (21%) say “none/nothing” (18%) or “don’t know” (3%).

10 ‒ © Ipsos

Executive Summary CITY SERVICES Overall satisfaction with City services remains high. Nearly all (96%) citizens say they are satisfied with the overall level and quality of services provided by the City of Coquitlam (48% ‘very satisfied’, 48% ‘somewhat satisfied’), on par with 2019.

Satisfaction continues to extend to the delivery of specific services. Of the nine services evaluated by residents, seven receive an overall satisfaction score (combined ‘very/somewhat satisfied’ responses) higher than 90%. These include public works, including drinking water quality and sewers (98%), fire services (96%), parks, trails, and other green space (95%), recreational and cultural opportunities (94%), police services (93%), recycling and garbage services (93%), and sports fields (93%). In comparison, road maintenance (83%) and neighbourhood planning (78%) score lower, although are still rated satisfactory by more than three-quarters of residents. Satisfaction with all services is statistically consistent with 2019, indicating that while the pandemic may have changed how some services are delivered, these changes did not significantly impact service satisfaction.

All the evaluated services are important to citizens, although sports fields has dropped in importance this year. Of the nine evaluated services, eight receive an importance score (combined ‘very/somewhat important’ responses) higher than 90%. The one service receiving a relatively lower importance score is sports fields (83%), although this service is still important to a large majority of residents. The importance of sports fields is down 5 points from 2019.

FINANCIAL PLANNING Perceptions of the City’s value for taxes remain high. A strong majority (89%) of citizens say they receive good value for their municipal tax dollars (23% ‘very good value’, 66% ‘fairly good value’). This year’s results are on par with 2019.

Citizens continue to prefer tax increases over service cuts although the tolerance for tax increases is softening. When given the choice between increased taxes or reduced services, 54% of citizens opt for tax increases while 33% say they would prefer service cuts. The overall preference for tax increases over service cuts is consistent with 2019. However, with slightly fewer saying increase taxes and slightly more saying cut services, the gap separating the two options has narrowed although is still in line with the past five-year average.

11 ‒ © Ipsos

Executive Summary PARKS, RECREATION, AND CULTURE Citizens’ top three priorities for parks, recreation, and culture continue to be trails, neighbourhood parks, and community centres. 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 hiking, walking, and biking trails (93%), neighbourhood parks, including playgrounds and community gardens (92%), and community centres, including senior and youth facilities (92%). Other important priorities include swimming pools (85%), public festivals and community events (85%), and sports fields and outdoor courts (83%). In comparison, citizens place less emphasis on performing arts and theatre (76%), arena facilities for ice sports, curling, and lacrosse (68%), and indoor racquet and court facilities (62%). However, these are still important to a majority of residents. The importance of arena facilities has dropped 7 points as compared to 2019, which may be at least partly attributable to closures stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.

COMMUNICATION Infrastructure and budget updates continue to be the most requested types of information. While citizens express interest in receiving a variety of information from the City, the two most frequently mentioned open-ended responses are “community infrastructure (improvements, updates)” (16%) and “City spending/budgets” (15%). These were also the top two information needs in 2019. Notably, two-in-five (40%) residents indicate they have no immediate information needs, with 34% saying “none/nothing” and 6% saying “don’t know”.

Email remains the best way of communicating information to citizens. A plurality (43%) of citizens identify “email” as the best way for the City to communicate information to them (coded open-ends). Other top mentions include “City website” (24%) and “mail” (21%). This year’s results are statistically consistent with 2019.

When contacting the City, most would prefer to reach out via the telephone or email. Overall, 76% of residents say they would prefer to contact the City via the “telephone”. “Email” garners 58% of mentions. These were also the top two mentions in 2019. Mentions of “City website” are up 5 points this year, while “in-person” mentions are down 7 points, consistent with communication changes brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic.

12 ‒ © Ipsos

Executive Summary PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT WITH THE CITY OF COQUITLAM Three-in-ten citizens say they have participated in a City engagement within the last two years. Overall, 30% of citizens say they participated in a public engagement with the City of Coquitlam within the last two years. This is consistent with 2019, although the results are not directly comparable due to differences in question wording (in 2019, residents were asked about their participation in a public consultation for any municipality, not just the City of Coquitlam.)

Participation is most likely to have occurred over the telephone. Among those who participated in a public engagement with the City in the last two years, the most common method of participation was over the “phone” (65%). Participation via the “phone” is up 24 points from 2019, while participation via an “in-person information session or open house” is down 24 points, reflecting COVID-19 restrictions on social interactions. Claimed participation in a “public hearing” is also down 18 points this year.

Citizens learned about the opportunity to provide input via a variety of channels. Among those who participated in a public engagement with the City in the last two years, nearly one-quarter (23%) say they learned about the opportunity to provide input via the “City website” (coded open-ends). Other mentions include “email” (17%), “mail” (16%), “phone” (13%), “newspaper ad” (12%), “social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram)” (12%), and “word of mouth” (10%). Mentions of “newspaper ads” are down 11 points from 2019.

Online feedback forms, surveys, and public open houses continue to be the most appealing forms of public consultation. When it comes to participating in public consultation with the City, the methods garnering the greatest level of interest (combined ‘very/somewhat interested’ responses) are feedback forms on the City’s website (70%), surveys like this (68%), and public open houses where residents can observe and comment on information posted on display boards (63%). There is less interest in community workshops where residents take part in active discussion sessions (49%), small community focus groups (48%), online blogs or discussion forums (42%), the City’s Facebook or Twitter page (41%), and mail in workbooks (36%). Compared to 2019, interest in small community focus groups has dropped 7 points, while interest in mail in workbooks is down 9 points.

13 ‒ © Ipsos

Executive Summary CUSTOMER SERVICE Contact with the City is at an all-time low. Slightly over one-third (35%) of citizens say they personally contacted or dealt with the City of Coquitlam or one of its employees in the last 12 months. Contact with the City is down 11 points from 2019 and the lowest it has been across all years of tracking. This year’s lower rate of contact is likely at least partly attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Garbage/recycling collection is the most common reason for contacting the City. Overall, 16% of those who contacted the City in the last 12 months say they did so regarding “garbage/recycling collection” (coded open-ends), on par with 2019. The next most frequently mentioned reasons for contacting the City are “license/permit” (9%) and “parks/recreational facilities” (9%).

The majority of contacts occurred via the telephone. Just over half (52%) of those who contacted the City in the last 12 months say they did so via the “telephone” (coded open-ends), consistent with 2019. The next most frequently mentioned methods of contact are “in-person” (17%) and “email” (14%).

“In-person” contacts are down 11 points this year, which is again at least partly attributable to the pandemic.

Satisfaction with the City’s overall customer service remains high and has improved in some areas. Overall, 91% of those who contacted the City in the last 12 months say they are satisfied (combined ‘very/somewhat satisfied’ responses) with the overall service received. Satisfaction extends to specific elements of the City’s customer service, including the courteousness of the staff (96%), the ability of staff to understand your needs (96%), staff’s knowledge (95%), staff’s helpfulness (93%), the ease of reaching staff (90%), the speed and timeliness of service (88%), and staff’s ability to resolve your issue (83%). Compared to 2019, improvements in satisfaction are seen for both the ability of staff to understand needs (up 11 points) and staff’s knowledge (up 7 points).

WORK Key employment metrics are stable. Overall, 59% of citizens say they are employed either ‘full-time’ (46%) or ‘part-time’ (13%). Among those working or attending school, three-in-ten (31%) say their employment or school is ‘based in Coquitlam’. These results are statistically consistent with 2019.

14 ‒ © Ipsos

Key Takeaways 1. The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted many aspects of residents’ everyday life but has not demonstratively changed overall perceptions of the community or City.

2. Key survey measures remain stable and strong.

•

Quality of life (97% good)

•

Overall service satisfaction (96% satisfied)

•

Value for taxes (89% good value)

3. Satisfaction with individual services has not significantly changed.

4. Quality of life continues to have positive momentum, mainly due to improvements in recreation and transportation, along with growth.

•

However, while growth and development has improved the quality of life of some residents, it has detracted from others.

5. The public issue agenda is shifting, with social issues replacing transportation as the most important top-of-mind community issue. Public safety has increased in importance while growth and development has fallen.

6. Citizens continue to prefer tax increases over service cuts although this preference is softening.

7. One area that does show meaningful signs of pandemic impacts is citizens’ communications and interactions with the City.

•

Contact with the City is at an all-time low.

•

In-person contacts have declined significantly.

•

Positively, perceptions of the City’s customer service remain favourable and have even improved in some areas (particularly the ability of staff to understand needs and staff’s knowledge).

•

While overall participation in public engagement with the City has not changed, the methods of participation have (more phone, less in-person).

15 ‒ © Ipsos

DETAILED FINDINGS

16 ‒ © Ipsos

COVID-19

17 ‒

17 ‒ © Ipsos

Impact of COVID-19 The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted many aspects of residents’ everyday life. The greatest negative impact has been on residents’ mental health (59%) and personal relationships (50%). The pandemic has also taken a toll on residents’ physical health (44%), work and career (38%), and household income (29%).

•

Women are more likely than men to report experiencing a deterioration in their mental health (69% versus 49%) and household income (34% versus 25%).

•

Negative impacts are also more frequently reported by those who are <55 years of age. ‒ Those who are <55 years of age are more likely to say the pandemic has negatively impacted their mental health (includes 67% of 18-34 years and 66% of 35-54 years versus 46% of 55+ years). ‒ Those who are 35-54 years of age are more likely to say the pandemic has negatively impacted their physical health (50% versus 38% of 55+ years, 44% of 18-34 years). ‒ Those who are 18-34 years of age are more likely to say the pandemic has negatively impacted their work and career (63% versus 25% of 55+ years, 33% of 35-54 years) and household income (48% versus 19% of 55+ years, 25% of 35-54 years).

18 ‒ © Ipsos

Impact of COVID-19 TOTAL IMPACT

Total Negative

No Impact

Your mental health

Don't know

59%

Your personal relationships

33%

50%

Your physical health

37%

44%

Your work and career

Your household income

Total Positive

38%

29%

41%

50%

63%

7%

12%

14%

10%

2%

7% 1%

Base: All respondents (n=500) COVID1. Overall, what kind of impact, if any, has the COVID-19 pandemic had on each of the following? Would you say the COVID-19 pandemic has had a very positive impact, somewhat positive impact, no impact, somewhat negative impact, or very negative impact on…?

19 ‒ © Ipsos

1%

QUALITY OF LIFE

20 ‒

20 ‒ © Ipsos

Quality of Life Overall perceptions of quality of life remain strong. Despite the challenges brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly all (97%) citizens continue to rate Coquitlam’s overall quality of life as ‘very good’ (48%) or ‘good’ (49%). This year’s results are similar to 2019 and are also on par with the municipal norm.

•

Perceptions of quality of life are high among all demographic subgroups.

Citizens continue to feel positive about the direction that quality of life is taking. Overall, 46% 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’ (35%) than ‘worsened’ (18%), resulting in a net momentum score of +17 percentage points. This year’s net score is statistically consistent with 2019 but notably higher than the municipal norm of -1.

•

Perceptions of an ‘improved’ quality of life are higher among younger residents (47% of 18-34 years versus 28% of 55+ years, 32% of 35-54 years) and those living in City Centre (45% versus 28% of Northeast Coquitlam, 28% of Central Coquitlam, 34% of West Coquitlam, 35% of Westwood Plateau).

•

Conversely, perceptions of a ‘worsened’ quality of life are higher among older residents (24% of 55+ years versus 11% of 18-34 years, 18% of 35-54 years) and those who have lived in Coquitlam for more than 20 years (22% versus 14% of 20 years or less).

Improvements in recreation and transportation, along with growth, are the main reasons behind perceptions of an improved quality of life. Among residents saying the quality of life has ‘improved’, the three most frequently mentioned open-ended explanations are “improved recreational facilities/parks” (22%), “improved transportation/roads” (15%), and “growth/development” (11%). Mentions of “improved recreational facilities/parks” are up 11 points this year as compared to 2019.

Growth, public safety, and traffic are driving perceptions of a worsened quality of life. Among those saying the quality of life has ‘worsened’, the three leading open-ended reasons are “growth/development” (32%), “crime/community safety/policing” (23%), and “traffic/traffic congestion” (13%).

Mentions of “crime/community safety/policing” are up 19 points this year as compared to 2019.

Citizens offer a number of suggestions for improving Coquitlam’s quality of life. Suggestions span a wide range of topics, with no single response standing out from the rest. Overall, the three most frequently mentioned open-ended suggestions are “more green space/parks” (9%), “less density/development” (8%), and “improve/expand recreation facilities/programs/services” (8%). Other suggestions include “affordable housing” (7%), “improve community safety” (6%), and “improve transportation infrastructure/roads” (6%). Notably, three-in-ten (31%) decline to offer any specific suggestions for improvement (includes 27% saying “none/nothing” and 4% saying “don’t know”).

21 ‒ © Ipsos

Overall Quality of Life Very good

48%

Good

Poor

49%

2%

Very poor

<1%

Don't know

<1%

Total Good

97%

Total Poor

3%

2011

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2021

(n=400)

(n=602)

(n=400)

(n=501)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

Total Good

99%

96%

98%

98%

98%

98%

98%

98%

97%

96%

Very good

47%

46%

50%

51%

49%

48%

48%

48%

48%

44%

NORM

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

22 ‒ © Ipsos

Significantly higher/ lower than 2019.

Change in Quality of Life Past Five Years Improved

35%

Stayed the same

46%

NET Score (2021) Worsened

Don't know

NET Score

Improved – Worsened

18%

+17

1%

2011

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2021

(n=400)

(n=602)

(n=400)

(n=501)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

+18

+12

+12

+10

+11

+18

+11

+15

+17

NORM*

* Norm asks how the quality of life has changed over the past three years.

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?

23 ‒ © Ipsos

Significantly higher/ lower than 2019.

-1

Reasons Quality of Life has Improved

(among those saying the quality of life has improved) (coded open-ends)

Improved recreational facilities/parks

22%

Improved transportation/roads

15%

Growth/development

11%

Improved/expanded infrastructure

8%

SkyTrain/Evergreen Line

6%

Community planning New/improved services

5% 4%

More events/activities

3%

Improved economy (more jobs, businesses)

3%

Better for kids/families

2%

Improved walking/bike paths and trails

2%

More diverse population

2%

None/nothing

2%

Don't know

Top Mentions (2019) (n=165)

Growth/development

18%

SkyTrain/Evergreen Line

18%

Improved transportation/ roads

13%

1%

Note: Mentions <2% not shown.

Base: Those saying the quality of life has improved (n=157) Q4. Why do you think the quality of life has improved?

24 ‒ © Ipsos

Significantly higher/ lower than 2019.

Reasons Quality of Life has Worsened

(among those saying the quality of life has worsened) (coded open-ends)

Growth/development

32%

Crime/community safety/policing

23%

Traffic/traffic congestion

13%

Housing costs/affordable housing Economy/rising cost of living

COVID-19 Impacts of construction on community

6%

5% 4%

Top Mentions (2019) (n=93)*

Growth/development

27%

Housing costs/affordable housing

18%

Traffic/traffic congestion

16%

3%

Lack of recreation/entertainment

2%

Lack of parking

2%

Note: Mentions <2% not shown. *Small base size, interpret with caution.

Base: Those saying the quality of life has worsened (n=102) Q5. Why do you think the quality of life has worsened?

25 ‒ © Ipsos

Significantly higher/ lower than 2019.

Suggestions for Improving Quality of Life (coded open-ends, multiple responses allowed)

More green space/parks

9%

Less density/development

8%

Improve/expand recreation facilities/programs/services

8%

Affordable housing

(n=500)

Improve transportation infrastructure/roads

7%

Improve community safety

6%

Improve transportation infrastructure/roads

6%

Improve schools/build more schools

5%

Improve transit/public transportation

5%

More affordable cost of living

4%

Improve walkways/sidewalks/bike paths

4%

Improve traffic congestion/flow

4%

Lower/reduce taxes

3%

Improve hospitals/healthcare

3%

None/nothing Don't know

Top Mentions (2019)

27%

Improve traffic congestion/flow

8%

Improve transit/public transportation

8%

Affordable housing

8%

More green space/parks

8%

Improve/expand recreation facilities/ programs/services

8%

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?

26 ‒ © Ipsos

10%

Significantly higher/ lower than 2019.

ISSUE AGENDA

27 ‒

27 ‒ © Ipsos

Important Community Issues (slide 1 of 2) Social issues replace transportation as the most important top-of-mind community issue. For the first time, social issues sit atop the public issue agenda, mentioned by 23% of residents on an open-ended basis. This includes mentions of “housing/lack of affordable housing” (13%), “poverty/homelessness” (6%), “racism” (1%), “seniors' issues” (1%), “drugs” (1%), “affordable daycare” (<1%) and “other social mentions” (2%). Mentions of social issues are statistically consistent with 2019 and are also on par with the municipal norm.

•

Social issues are mentioned more often by those living in West Coquitlam and City Centre (29% and 27% versus 10% of Northeast Coquitlam, 20% of Westwood Plateau, 20% of Central Coquitlam) and those who have lived in Coquitlam for more than 20 years (28% versus 19% of 20 years or less).

Transportation-related mentions are down this year. Following social issues, the next most important local issue is transportation (15%). This includes mentions of “traffic congestion” (5%), “transportation (general)” (3%), “condition of streets/roads” (3%), “quality/level of public transit” (2%), “parking” (1%), “road safety” (<1%), and “other transportation mentions” (<1%). Transportation-related mentions are down 19 points this year, dropping it from the top of the public issue agenda for the first time since the City began tracking this metric in 2003. The decline in transportation mentions may be at least partly attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic, with more people working remotely and making fewer personal trips outside the home. Transportation mentions in Coquitlam are now notably lower than the municipal norm (34%).

Public safety rounds out citizens’ top three community issues. Overall, 13% of citizens mention issues related to public safety, including “crime (general)” (5%), “community safety” (4%), and “policing/law enforcement” (3%). Mentions of public safety are up 8 points this year although are on par with the municipal norm.

28 ‒ © Ipsos

Important Community Issues (slide 2 of 2) Fewer residents mention growth and development-related issues this year. While growth and development was one of the top three issues in 2019, it is only mentioned by 7% of residents this year (down 8 points). Specific related mentions include “growth/development (general)” (3%), “population growth” (3%), “level of development” (2%), and “other growth and development mentions” (<1%). Mentions of growth and development in Coquitlam are now below the municipal norm (15%).

•

Growth and development is mentioned more often by those who are 55+ years of age (13% versus 1% of 18-34 years, 7% of 35-54 years), those living in West Coquitlam (13% versus 4% of Northeast Coquitlam, 4% of City Centre, 5% of Central Coquitlam, 7% of Westwood Plateau), and those who have lived in Coquitlam for more than 20 years (12% versus 3% of 20 years or less).

COVID-19 sits further down the public issue agenda. Fewer than one-in-ten (6%) mention COVID-19 as an important local issue on a top-of-mind basis.

This may be a sign that residents see the pandemic as more of a federal or provincial responsibility. Even if this is seen as a municipal responsibility, residents may feel that the City is handing the pandemic reasonably well and may believe there is not much more the City can do in this regard. It may also be possible that COVID-19 is fading as a local issue as more people are vaccinated and case counts drop.

Nearly one-quarter decline to identify any important community issues. Overall, 23% of residents are unable to identify any important community issues, including 21% saying “none/nothing” and 2% saying “don’t know”.

29 ‒ © Ipsos

Important Community Issues

(coded open-ends, multiple responses allowed) TOTAL MENTIONS TOTAL MENTIONS

First mention

Second mention

Social (NET)

Total Mentions

19%

Transportation (NET)

23%

10%

Public safety (NET)

15%

8%

Parks, recreation, & culture (NET)

13%

5%

10%

Municipal gov't services (NET)

6%

Growth & development (NET)

6%

8% 7%

NORM

2011

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2021

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

26%

5%

8%

5%

8%

17%

22%

27%

25%

23%

34%

40%

45%

37%

39%

35%

36%

36%

34%

15%

12%

13%

10%

10%

11%

8%

7%

5%

5%

13%

8%

9%

7%

6%

7%

6%

7%

7%

7%

10%

8%

10%

7%

7%

7%

9%

11%

7%

10%

8%

15%

5%

6%

7%

10%

10%

10%

15%

15%

7%

Healthcare (NET)

4%

6%

4%

5%

4%

2%

2%

1%

6%

4%

3%

6%

COVID-19 (NET)

4%

6%

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

6%

Taxation/municipal gov't spending (NET)

4%

5%

7%

15%

14%

15%

11%

11%

6%

9%

8%

5%

Education (NET)

4%

5%

6%

10%

8%

10%

9%

7%

6%

5%

6%

5%

Environment (NET)

2%

3%

4%

4%

5%

2%

5%

2%

4%

3%

4%

3%

Economy (NET)

2%

3%

4%

2%

3%

4%

2%

1%

0%

1%

3%

3%

Other (NET)

2%

4%

None/nothing Don't know

21% 2%

Note: Public safety was labelled as crime in previous surveys.

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?

30 ‒ © Ipsos

Significantly higher/ lower than 2019.

TRANSPORTATION

31 ‒

31 ‒ © Ipsos

Important Transportation Issues Traffic congestion and public transportation remain the top transportation issues. Recognizing that transportation has consistently been 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 “traffic/traffic congestion” (26%) and “quality/level of public transportation” (23%). Another 10% mention “condition of roads”. While “quality/level of public transportation” continues to be a leading transportation issue, mentions are down 12 points from 2019.

One-in-five (21%) say “none/nothing” (18%) or “don’t know” (3%).

•

“Traffic/traffic congestion” is mentioned more often by men (31% versus 22% of women) and those who are 35+ years of age (includes 31% of 35-54 years and 30% of 55+ years versus 14% of 18-34 years). It is less likely to be mentioned by those living in Northeast Coquitlam (13% versus 32% of Westwood Plateau, 28% of City Centre, 26% of Central Coquitlam, 26% of West Coquitlam).

•

“Quality/level of public transportation” is mentioned more often by younger residents (35% of 18-34 years versus 16% of 55+ years, 21% of 35-54 years) and those living in Northeast Coquitlam (42% versus 15% of City Centre, 22% of Westwood Plateau, 23% of Central Coquitlam, 23% of West Coquitlam).

32 ‒ © Ipsos

Important Transportation Issues (coded open-ends)

Traffic/traffic congestion

26%

Quality/level of public transportation

23%

Condition of roads

10%

Evergreen Line/SkyTrain Transportation planning Construction

5%

(n=500)

3% 2%

Unsafe driving

1%

Traffic lights

1%

Capacity of roads

1%

Parking

1%

Other

Quality/level of public transportation

35%

Traffic/traffic congestion

29%

Condition of roads

7%

None/nothing Don't know

Top Mentions (2019)

18% 3%

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

33 ‒ © Ipsos

Significantly higher/ lower than 2019.

7%

CITY SERVICES

34 ‒

34 ‒ © Ipsos

Satisfaction with City Services Overall satisfaction with City services remains high. Nearly all (96%) citizens say they are satisfied with the overall level and quality of services provided by the City of Coquitlam (48% ‘very satisfied’, 48% ‘somewhat satisfied’), on par with 2019. Overall satisfaction (combined ‘very/somewhat satisfied’ responses) is similar to the municipal norm, although the percentage saying ‘very satisfied’ is higher in Coquitlam (34% norm).

•

Those living in Westwood Plateau and City Centre are more likely to say they are ‘very satisfied’ with the overall level and quality of City services (57% and 56% versus 34% of Northeast Coquitlam, 44% of West Coquitlam, 47% of Central Coquitlam).

Satisfaction continues to extend to the delivery of specific services. Of the nine services evaluated by residents, seven receive an overall satisfaction score (combined ‘very/somewhat satisfied’ responses) higher than 90%. These include public works, including drinking water quality and sewers (98%), fire services (96%), parks, trails, and other green space (95%), recreational and cultural opportunities (94%), police services (93%), recycling and garbage services (93%), and sports fields (93%). In comparison, road maintenance (83%) and neighbourhood planning (78%) score lower, although are still rated satisfactory by more than three-quarters of residents. Satisfaction with all services is statistically consistent with 2019, indicating that while the pandemic may have changed how some services are delivered, these changes did not significantly impact service satisfaction. Satisfaction is also on par with the municipal norm in all instances.

•

Satisfaction with road maintenance is higher among women (88% versus 78% of men), those who are not 35-54 years of age (includes 87% of 55+ years and 85% of 18-34 years versus 79% of 35-54 years), and those living in City Centre (91% versus 78% of Central Coquitlam, 78% of West Coquitlam, 88% of Northeast Coquitlam, 88% of Westwood Plateau).

•

Satisfaction with neighbourhood planning is higher among younger residents (89% of 18-34 years versus 73% of 35-54 years, 74% of 55+ years). While not statistically significant, it is directionally lower among those living in Northeast Coquitlam (68% versus 84% of Westwood Plateau, 81% of City Centre, 80% of Central Coquitlam, 74% of West Coquitlam).

35 ‒ © Ipsos

Overall Satisfaction with City Services Very satisfied

48%

Total Satisfied

Somewhat satisfied

48%

96%

Not very satisfied

Total Not Satisfied

3%

Not at all satisfied

<1%

Don't know

<1%

3%

2011

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2021

(n=400)

(n=602)

(n=400)

(n=501)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

Total Satisfied

96%

94%

97%

96%

97%

95%

94%

96%

96%

93%

Very satisfied

34%

37%

44%

39%

37%

39%

39%

46%

48%

34%

NORM

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.

36 ‒ © Ipsos

Significantly higher/ lower than 2019.

Satisfaction with Specific City Services TOTAL SATISFIED TOTAL SATISFIED

Very satisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Public works, incl. drinking water quality & sewers

Total Satisfied

70%

Fire services

73%

Parks, trails, & other green space

57%

Recreational & cultural opportunities

34%

NORM

2011

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2021

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

98%

97%

98%

98%

98%

98%

98%

98%

98%

97%

98%

96%

96%

93%

96%

98%

96%

98%

98%

98%

97%

96%

95%

95%

94%

96%

97%

97%

96%

96%

97%

96%

95%

94%

91%

91%

92%

93%

93%

94%

90%

92%

90%

94%

Police services

52%

93%

89%

92%

92%

95%

93%

95%

96%

96%

96%

93%

Recycling & garbage services

51%

93%

89%

84%

88%

92%

88%

91%

88%

86%

91%

93%

93%

92%

90%

92%

94%

93%

93%

95%

92%

92%

93%

79%

71%

76%

83%

80%

81%

74%

83%

81%

83%

77%

68%

78%

80%

77%

79%

77%

75%

75%

78%

Sports fields Road maintenance Neighbourhood planning

44% 26% 17%

83% 78%

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)

37 ‒ © Ipsos

Significantly higher/ lower than 2019.

Importance of Specific City Services All the evaluated services are important to citizens, although sports fields has dropped in importance this year. Of the nine evaluated services, eight receive an importance score (combined ‘very/somewhat important’ responses) higher than 90%. Moreover, many of these services receive high ‘very important’ scores.

•

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

•

Fire services (98% important)

•

Recycling and garbage services (98% important)

•

Parks, trails, and other green space (98% important)

•

Police services (96% important)

•

Road maintenance (96% important)

•

Recreational and cultural opportunities (94% important)

•

Neighbourhood planning (93% important) ‒ This service is more important to those living in Northeast Coquitlam and City Centre (100% and 96% versus 87% of Central Coquitlam, 93% of Westwood Plateau, 94% of West Coquitlam).

The one service receiving a relatively lower importance score is sports fields (83%, down 5 points from 2019).

•

This service is more important to those who are <55 years of age (includes 87% of 18-34 years and 85% of 35-54 years versus 76% of 55+ years) and those living in households with children under the age of 18 (91% versus 78% of those without children at home).

This year’s results are on par with the municipal norm in all instances.

38 ‒ © Ipsos

Importance of Specific City Services TOTAL IMPORTANT TOTAL IMPORTANT

Very important

Somewhat important

Public works, incl. drinking water quality & sewers

Total Imporant

89%

Fire services

81%

Recycling & garbage services

76%

Parks, trails, & other green space

73%

Police services

73%

Road maintenance

61%

NORM

2011

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2021

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

99%

99%

95%

99%

99%

99%

98%

99%

99%

99%

99%

98%

99%

97%

98%

98%

98%

98%

99%

98%

99%

98%

98%

97%

98%

95%

96%

96%

98%

97%

93%

98%

98%

98%

97%

93%

96%

95%

96%

97%

97%

96%

96%

98%

96%

98%

97%

96%

98%

99%

99%

99%

97%

97%

96%

96%

98%

96%

97%

97%

98%

98%

99%

98%

98%

96%

Recreational & cultural opportunities

52%

94%

93%

90%

90%

91%

91%

92%

94%

90%

94%

94%

Neighbourhood planning

52%

93%

94%

86%

90%

93%

92%

93%

94%

93%

94%

93%

83%

82%

84%

84%

86%

84%

81%

80%

88%

83%

Sports fields

40%

83%

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.

39 ‒ © Ipsos

Significantly higher/ lower than 2019.

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.

40 ‒ © Ipsos

Action Grid STRENGTHS The City of Coquitlam has five PRIMARY STRENGTHS including public works, fire services, parks, trails, and other green space, recycling and garbage services, and police services.

The City’s two SECONDARY STRENGTHS are recreational and cultural opportunities and sports fields.

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

The City’s one SECONDARY AREA FOR IMPROVEMENT is neighbourhood planning.

41 ‒ © Ipsos

Action Grid 100%

Primary Areas for Improvement

Primary Strengths Public works Recycling & garbage services Fire services Parks, trails, & other green space Road maintenance

Police services

95%

Recreational & cultural opportunities

IMPORTANCE

Neighbourhood planning

Sports fields

Secondary Areas for Improvement 80% 70%

Secondary Strengths 91%

SATISFACTION 42 ‒ © Ipsos

100%

FINANCIAL PLANNING

43 ‒

43 ‒ © Ipsos

Value for Taxes and Balancing Taxation/Service Delivery Levels Perceptions of the City’s value for taxes remain high. A strong majority (89%) of citizens say they receive good value for their municipal tax dollars (23% ‘very good value’, 66% ‘fairly good value’). This year’s results are on par with 2019. Perceptions of the City’s value for taxes are on par with the municipal norm.

•

The perceived value for taxes is higher among women (92% versus 85% of men) and those living in City Centre (95% versus 82% of Central Coquitlam, 89% of Northeast Coquitlam, 89% of West Coquitlam, 90% of Westwood Plateau).

Citizens continue to prefer tax increases over service cuts although the tolerance for tax increases is softening. When given the choice between increased taxes or reduced services, 54% of citizens opt for tax increases while 33% say they would prefer service cuts. Specifically, 21% say ‘increase taxes to enhance or expand services’ and 34% say ‘increase taxes to maintain services at current levels’ compared to 22% saying ‘cut services to maintain current tax level’ and 11% saying ‘cut services to reduce taxes’. The overall preference for tax increases over service cuts is consistent with 2019.

However, with slightly fewer saying increase taxes and slightly more saying cut services, the gap separating the two options has narrowed although is still in line with the past five-year average. This year’s results are consistent with the municipal norm.

•

The preference for tax increases over service cuts is consistent across all demographic segments.

44 ‒ © Ipsos

Value for Taxes Very good value

✓

Fairly good value

66%

Fairly poor value



Total Good Value

23%

Very poor value Don't know

89%

Total Poor Value

8%

10%

2%

1%

2011

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2021

(n=400)

(n=602)

(n=400)

(n=501)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

Total Good Value

81%

83%

88%

88%

86%

86%

88%

88%

89%

85%

Very good value

18%

23%

23%

22%

20%

21%

24%

26%

23%

22%

NORM

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?)

45 ‒ © Ipsos

Significantly higher/ lower than 2019.

Balancing Taxation and Service Delivery Levels INCREASE TAXES to enhance or expand services

21%

INCREASE TAXES to maintain services at current levels

Total Increase Taxes

54%

34%

CUT SERVICES to maintain current tax level

22%

CUT SERVICES to reduce taxes

Total Cut Services

33%

11%

None

8%

Don't know

4%

2011

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2021

(n=400)

(n=602)

(n=400)

(n=501)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

Total Increase Taxes

45%

43%

48%

53%

54%

51%

49%

59%

54%

56%

Total Cut Services

46%

43%

41%

34%

34%

38%

39%

29%

33%

32%

NORM

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?

46 ‒ © Ipsos

Significantly higher/ lower than 2019.

PARKS, RECREATION, AND CULTURE

47 ‒

47 ‒ © Ipsos

Parks, Recreation, and Culture Priorities Citizens’ top three priorities for parks, recreation, and culture continue to be trails, neighbourhood parks, and community centres. 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 hiking, walking, and biking trails (93%), neighbourhood parks, including playgrounds and community gardens (92%), and community centres, including senior and youth facilities (92%). These three priorities also receive high ‘very important’ scores.

•

Hiking, walking, and biking trails are more important to those who are <55 years of age (includes 97% of 35-54 years and 95% of 18-34 years versus 88% of 55+ years) and those living in households with children under the age of 18 (98% versus 91% of those without children at home).

Other important priorities include swimming pools (85%), public festivals and community events (85%), and sports fields and outdoor courts (83%).

•

Swimming pools are more important to those who are 35-54 years of age (92% versus 77% of 55+ years, 85% of 18-34 years) and those living in households with children under the age of 18 (93% versus 81% of those without children at home).

•

Public festivals and community events are more important to those who are 35-54 years of age (92% versus 81% of 55+ years, 81% of 18-34 years) and those living in households with children under the age of 18 (91% versus 82% of those without children at home).

•

Sports fields and outdoor courts are more important to those who are <55 years of age (includes 89% of 18-34 years and 86% of 35-54 years versus 76% of 55+ years), those who have lived in Coquitlam for 20 years or less (88% versus 78% of more than 20 years), and those living in households with children under the age of 18 (94% versus 78% of those without children at home).

In comparison, citizens place less emphasis on performing arts and theatre (76%), arena facilities for ice sports, curling, and lacrosse (68%), and indoor racquet and court facilities (62%). However, these are still important to a majority of residents. The importance of arena facilities has dropped 7 points as compared to 2019, which may be at least partly attributable to closures stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.

•

Performing arts and theatre are more important to women (83% versus 70% of men).

•

Arena facilities are more important to those who have lived in Coquitlam for more than 20 years (73% versus 61% of 20 years or less).

•

Indoor racquet and court facilities are more important to younger residents (74% of 18-34 years versus 52% of 55+ years, 61% of 35-54 years) and those who have lived in Coquitlam for 20 years or less (67% versus 57% of more than 20 years).

48 ‒ © Ipsos

Parks, Recreation, and Culture Priorities TOTAL IMPORTANT TOTAL IMPORTANT

Very important

Somewhat important

Total Imporant

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2021

(n=501)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

Hiking, walking, & biking trails

66%

93%

88%

89%

91%

89%

90%

93%

Neighbourhood parks incl. playgrounds & community gardens

66%

92%

91%

94%

95%

91%

95%

92%

92%

95%

93%

93%

92%

91%

92%

85%

84%

85%

86%

82%

84%

85%

85%

81%

83%

87%

88%

89%

85%

82%

81%

80%

80%

84%

83%

77%

75%

80%

75%

78%

76%

74%

71%

69%

72%

75%

68%

60%

59%

59%

59%

60%

62%

Community centres, incl. senior & youth facilities

57%

Swimming pools

49%

Public festivals & community events

37%

Sports fields & outdoor courts Performing arts & theatre Arena facilities for ice sports, curling, & lacrosse Indoor racquet & court facilities

43%

83%

26% 31% 20%

76% 68% 62%

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.

49 ‒ © Ipsos

Significantly higher/ lower than 2019.

COMMUNICATION AND PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

50 ‒

50 ‒ © Ipsos

Information Needs and Communication Preferences Infrastructure and budget updates continue to be the most requested types of information. While citizens express interest in receiving a variety of information from the City, the two most frequently mentioned open-ended responses are “community infrastructure (improvements, updates)” (16%) and “City spending/budgets” (15%). These were also the top two information needs in 2019. Notably, two-in-five (40%) residents indicate they have no immediate information needs, with 34% saying “none/nothing” and 6% saying “don’t know”.

•

Mentions of “community infrastructure” are higher among those who are 35-54 years of age (23% versus 11% of 18-34 years, 12% of 55+ years), those who have lived in Coquitlam for 20 years or less (20% versus 12% of more than 20 years), and those living in households with children under the age of 18 (24% versus 12% of those without children at home).

Email remains the best way of communicating information to citizens. A plurality (43%) of citizens identify “email” as the best way for the City to communicate information to them (coded open-ends). Other top mentions include “City website” (24%) and “mail” (21%). This year’s results are statistically consistent with 2019. The strong preference for “email” communications is consistent with the municipal norm.

•

“Email” mentions are higher among those who are 35-54 years of age (52% versus 33% of 55+ years, 42% of 18-34 years) and those living in households with children under the age of 18 (57% versus 36% of those without children at home).

•

“Mail” mentions are lower among those living in Northeast Coquitlam (7% versus 25% of West Coquitlam, 23% of Central Coquitlam, 22% of City Centre, 19% of Westwood Plateau).

•

While “social media” falls just outside the top three, it is mentioned more frequently by those <55 years of age (includes 24% of 18-34 years and 18% of 35-54 years versus 5% of 55+ years). Conversely, those who are 55+ years of age are more likely to mention “newspaper” (24% versus 7% of 18-34 years, 9% of 35-54 years).

When contacting the City, most would prefer to reach out via the telephone or email. Overall, 76% of residents say they would prefer to contact the City via the “telephone”. “Email” garners 58% of mentions. These were also the top two mentions in 2019. Mentions of “City website” are up 5 points this year, while “in-person” mentions are down 7 points, consistent with communication changes brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic.

•

“Telephone” is mentioned more often by those living in West Coquitlam (81% versus 62% of Northeast Coquitlam, 68% of Westwood Plateau, 78% of Central Coquitlam, 79% of City Centre).

•

“Email” is mentioned more often by those who are <55 years of age (includes 67% of 35-54 years and 63% of 18-34 years versus 44% of 55+ years) and those living in households with children under the age of 18 (67% versus 54% of those without children at home).

51 ‒ © Ipsos

Information Needs

(coded open-ends, multiple mentions allowed)

Community infrastructure (improvements, updates)

16%

City spending/budgets

15%

General city news/updates

7%

Housing/development

6%

City services (unspecified)

4%

Recreational events/activities

4%

Top Mentions (2019) (n=500)

Community events/activities

3%

Community infrastructure (improvements, updates)

19%

City Council updates

3%

City spending/budgets

14%

Garbage/recycling

3%

Transparency/accountability

3%

Housing/development

8%

Continue to provide information on the website

2%

Crime/crime statistics

2%

Parks/green spaces

2%

None/nothing Don't know

34% 6%

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?

52 ‒ © Ipsos

Significantly higher/ lower than 2019.

Preferred Methods of Receiving City Information (coded open ends, multiple mentions allowed)

Email

43%

City website

24%

Mail

21%

Social media (Twitter, Facebook, etc.)

15%

Newsletter/pamphlet/flyer/brochure

14%

Newspaper

14%

Internet (unspecified)

6%

Telephone

4%

Text message/texting

4%

TV

3%

None/nothing

3%

Don't know

NORM Top Mentions Email

37%

Mail

28%

Newspaper

21%

Top Mentions (2019) (n=500)

Email

40%

Mail

25%

City website

25%

1%

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?

53 ‒ © Ipsos

Significantly higher/ lower than 2019.

Preferred Methods of Contacting the City (coded open ends, multiple mentions allowed)

Telephone

76%

Email

58%

City website

16%

In-person

7%

Online/Internet

3%

In writing such as by mail or fax

2%

Social media (City Facebook or Twitter page) Text message

Top Mentions (2019) (n=500)

Telephone

78%

Email

54%

In-person

14%

2% 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?

54 ‒ © Ipsos

Significantly higher/ lower than 2019.

Public Engagement with the City of Coquitlam Three-in-ten citizens say they have participated in a City engagement within the last two years. Overall, 30% of citizens say they participated in a public engagement with the City of Coquitlam within the last two years. This is consistent with 2019, although the results are not directly comparable due to differences in question wording (in 2019, residents were asked about their participation in a public consultation for any municipality, not just the City of Coquitlam.)

•

Claimed participation is higher among those who are 35+ years of age (includes 36% of 35-54 years and 34% of 55+ years versus 18% of 18-34 years) and homeowners (32% versus 16% of renters).

Participation is most likely to have occurred over the telephone. Among those who participated in a public engagement with the City in the last two years, the most common method of participation was over the “phone” (65%). Participation via the “phone” is up 24 points from 2019, while participation via an “in-person information session or open house” is down 24 points, reflecting COVID-19 restrictions on social interactions. Claimed participation in a “public hearing” is also down 18 points this year.

Citizens learned about the opportunity to provide input via a variety of channels. Among those who participated in a public engagement with the City in the last two years, nearly one-quarter (23%) say they learned about the opportunity to provide input via the “City website” (coded open-ends). Other mentions include “email” (17%), “mail” (16%), “phone” (13%), “newspaper ad” (12%), “social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram)” (12%), and “word of mouth” (10%). Mentions of “newspaper ads” are down 11 points from 2019.

55 ‒ © Ipsos

Public Engagement with the City of Coquitlam

Yes 30%

No 69%

2019* (n=500) Yes

27%

DISCOVERED THROUGH…

Don't know 1%

TYPE OF CITY PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

PARTICIPATED IN PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT WITH CITY IN PAST 2 YEARS

Phone Mail Any other type of online survey In-person information session or open house The City of Coquitlam's Viewpoint panel survey Town Hall meeting Public hearing Any other type of engagement City website Email Mail Phone Newspaper ad Social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) Word of mouth Through a City Councillor Internet/online Billboard/sign Poster None/nothing Don't know

65% 38% 37% 35% 29% 22% 21% 38%

2019* (n=138) 41% 32% 49% 59% 28% 31% 39% 17% 15% 25% 14% 9% 23% 18% 15% 1% 0% 0% 5%

23% 17% 16% 13% 12% 12% 10% 5% 3% 2% 2% 2% 7%

0% 2%

Base: All respondents (n=500) Q13a. Have you participated in any type of public engagement including in-person, online, phone, or mail with the City of Coquitlam in the last two years?

Base: Those saying they participated in a public engagement in the last two years (n=160) Q13b. In the last two years, in which of the following ways have you participated in a public engagement with the City of Coquitlam?

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.

56 ‒ © Ipsos

*Results are not directly comparable to 2019 due to differences in question wording (in 2019, residents were asked about their participation in a public consultation for any municipality, not just the City of Coquitlam.)

Significantly higher/ lower than 2019.

Interest in Participating in Different Methods of Public Consultation Online feedback forms, surveys, and public open houses continue to be the most appealing forms of public consultation. When it comes to participating in public consultation with the City, the methods garnering the greatest level of interest (combined ‘very/somewhat interested’ responses) are feedback forms on the City’s website (70%), surveys like this (68%), and public open houses where residents can observe and comment on information posted on display boards (63%). There is less interest in community workshops where residents take part in active discussion sessions (49%), small community focus groups (48%), online blogs or discussion forums (42%), the City’s Facebook or Twitter page (41%), and mail in workbooks (36%). Compared to 2019, interest in small community focus groups has dropped 7 points, while interest in mail in workbooks is down 9 points.

•

Younger residents express greater interest in several public consultation methods, including feedback forms on the City’s website (79% of 18-34 years versus 58% of 55+ years, 74% of 35-54 years), community workshops (61% of 18-34 years versus 40% of 55+ years, 48% of 35-54 years), online blogs or discussions forums (66% of 18-34 years versus 21% of 55+ years, 43% of 35-54 years), and the City’s Facebook or Twitter page (61% of 18-34 years versus 21% of 55+ years, 44% of 35-54 years).

•

While those who have previously participated in a public engagement with the City are directionally more interested than non-past participants in most methods of consultation, these differences are not statistically significant.

57 ‒ © Ipsos

Interest in Participating in Different Methods of Public Consultation TOTAL INTERESTED TOTAL INTERESTED Feedback forms on the City's website Surveys like this Public open houses where residents can observe and comment on information posted on display boards Community workshops where residents take part in active discussion sessions Small community focus groups Online blogs or discussion forums The City's Facebook or Twitter page Mail in workbooks

Very interested

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2021

(n=501)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

70%

68%

67%

66%

68%

73%

70%

68%

65%

67%

68%

67%

74%

68%

66%

64%

69%

64%

66%

63%

59%

52%

59%

54%

55%

49%

52%

48%

53%

50%

55%

48%

Somewhat interested

21% 15% 17%

Total Interested

63%

12%

49%

11%

48%

9%

42%

36%

37%

38%

39%

37%

42%

13%

41%

36%

40%

39%

41%

42%

41%

38%

42%

40%

44%

45%

36%

8%

36%

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?

58 ‒ © Ipsos

Significantly higher/ lower than 2019.

CUSTOMER SERVICE

59 ‒

59 ‒ © Ipsos

City Contact and Customer Service Contact with the City is at an all-time low. Slightly over one-third (35%) of citizens say they personally contacted or dealt with the City of Coquitlam or one of its employees in the last 12 months. Contact with the City is down 11 points from 2019 and the lowest it has been across all years of tracking; it is also lower than the municipal norm (48%). This year’s lower rate of contact is likely at least partly attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic.

•

Claimed contact is higher among those who are 35+ years of age (includes 43% of 35-54 years and 42% of 55+ years versus 16% of 18-34 years) and homeowners (38% versus 21% of renters).

Garbage/recycling collection is the most common reason for contacting the City. Overall, 16% of those who contacted the City in the last 12 months say they did so regarding “garbage/recycling collection” (coded open-ends), on par with 2019. The next most frequently mentioned reasons for contacting the City are “license/permit” (9%) and “parks/recreational facilities” (9%).

The majority of contacts occurred via the telephone. Just over half (52%) of those who contacted the City in the last 12 months say they did so via the “telephone” (coded open-ends), consistent with 2019. The next most frequently mentioned methods of contact are “in-person” (17%) and “email” (14%).

“In-person” contacts are down 11 points this year, which is again at least partly attributable to the pandemic.

Satisfaction with the City’s overall customer service remains high and has improved in some areas. Overall, 91% of those who contacted the City in the last 12 months say they are satisfied (combined ‘very/somewhat satisfied’ responses) with the overall service received. Overall satisfaction is statistically consistent with 2019 but is higher than the municipal norm (84%).

Satisfaction extends to specific elements of the City’s customer service, including the courteousness of the staff (96%), the ability of staff to understand your needs (96%), staff’s knowledge (95%), staff’s helpfulness (93%), the ease of reaching staff (90%), the speed and timeliness of service (88%), and staff’s ability to resolve your issue (83%). Compared to 2019, improvements in satisfaction are seen for both the ability of staff to understand needs (up 11 points) and staff’s knowledge (up 7 points). Moreover, satisfaction is higher than the municipal norm in several areas of service.

60 ‒ © Ipsos

Contact with City Past 12 Months

35% % Yes

% Yes

2011

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2021

(n=400)

(n=602)

(n=400)

(n=501)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

46%

47%

52%

51%

44%

50%

50%

46%

35%

NORM 48%

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?

61 ‒ © Ipsos

Significantly higher/ lower than 2019.

Reason for Contacting the City

(among those saying they contacted the City) (coded open-ends)

Garbage/recycling collection

16%

License/permit

9%

Parks/recreational facilities

9%

Pay my taxes/utilities Trees on property

7% 5%

Bylaws

4%

Developments/overdevelopment

4%

Housing/real estate

4%

Animals/animal control

3%

Policing/community safety

3%

Street lights

3%

To volunteer

3%

Water/drain concerns

3%

Don't know

Top Mentions (2019) (n=246)

Garbage/recycling collection Pay my taxes/utilities

9%

Bylaws

7%

<1%

Note: Mentions <3% not shown.

Base: Those saying they contacted the City (n=192) Q16. What was the main reason why you contacted the City?

62 ‒ © Ipsos

12%

Significantly higher/ lower than 2019.

Contact Method

(among those saying they contacted the City) (coded open-ends)

Telephone

52%

In-person

17%

Top Mentions (2019) Email

Website

9%

In writing such as by mail or fax

1%

Online

1%

Other

(n=246)

14% Telephone

51%

In-person

28%

Email

13%

5%

Base: Those saying they contacted the City (n=192) Q17. How did you come into contact with the City?

63 ‒ © Ipsos

Significantly higher/ lower than 2019.

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

TOTAL SATISFIED TOTAL SATISFIED

Overall service you received

Very satisfied

Somewhat satisfied

57%

The courteousness of the staff

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2021

(n=207)

(n=274)

(n=247)

(n=269)

(n=264)

(n=246)

(n=192)

84%

89%

87%

88%

82%

87%

88%

91%

96%

93%

92%

93%

92%

93%

97%

93%

96%

Total Satisfied

NORM

91% 79%

The ability of staff to understand your needs

66%

96%

86%

87%

89%

87%

83%

87%

85%

96%

Staff's knowledge

66%

95%

87%

92%

86%

87%

85%

88%

88%

95%

Staff's helpfulness

67%

87%

93%

89%

89%

84%

88%

90%

93%

86%

91%

85%

86%

82%

86%

88%

90%

84%

85%

88%

85%

77%

83%

88%

88%

79%

80%

79%

79%

75%

77%

78%

83%

The ease of reaching staff

53%

The speed and timeliness of service

52%

Staff's ability to resolve your issue

56%

93% 90% 88% 83%

Base: Those saying they contacted the City (n=192) 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)

64 ‒ © Ipsos

Significantly higher/ lower than 2019.

WORK

65 ‒

65 ‒ © Ipsos

Employment Status and Location Key employment metrics are stable. Overall, 59% of citizens say they are employed either ‘full-time’ (46%) or ‘part-time’ (13%). Among those working or attending school, three-in-ten (31%) say their employment or school is ‘based in Coquitlam’. These results are statistically consistent with 2019.

•

Claimed employment is higher among those who are 35-54 years of age (86% versus 28% of 55+ years, 61% of 18-34 years), those living in Northeast Coquitlam (73% versus 48% of Central Coquitlam, 59% of Westwood Plateau, 61% of West Coquitlam, 62% of City Centre), those who have lived in Coquitlam for 20 years or less (68% versus 51% of more than 20 years), and those living in households with children under the age of 18 (79% versus 50% of those without children at home).

66 ‒ © Ipsos

Employment Status Employed full-time, including self employed

46%

Employed part-time, including self employed

59%

13%

Retired

25%

A student

8%

Not currently employed Full-time parent/ homemaker Other

Total Employed

Total Employed

5% 3%

<1%

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2021

(n=602)

(n=400)

(n=501)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

61%

63%

60%

57%

57%

61%

59%

59%

Note: “A homemaker” changed to “Full-time parent/homemaker” in 2021.

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

67 ‒ © Ipsos

Significantly higher/ lower than 2019.

Location of Work or School

(among those saying they are employed or attending school) Based in a neighbouring municipality

35%

Based in Coquitlam

31%

Based in Vancouver

18%

Based elsewhere in the Lower Mainland Other

Based in Coquitlam

13%

4%

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2021

(n=363)

(n=265)

(n=325)

(n=330)

(n=318)

(n=308)

(n=299)

(n=282)

30%

23%

31%

22%

28%

25%

25%

31%

Base: Those saying they are employed or attending school (n=282) Q24. And, is your employment/school…?

68 ‒ © Ipsos

Significantly higher/ lower than 2019.

WEIGHTED SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS

69 ‒ © Ipsos

Weighted Sample Characteristics All respondents (n=500) Gender

Length of Residency in Coquitlam

Male

48%

20 years or less

48%

Female

52%

More than 20 years

52%

Average # of years

23.8

Age 18-34

28%

Homeownership

35-54

37%

Own

81%

55+

35%

Rent

11%

Neighbourhood

Housing Type

Northeast Coquitlam

10%

Single, detached house

73%

City Centre

22%

Apartment

11%

Westwood Plateau

14%

Townhouse/rowhouse

8%

Central Coquitlam

25%

Duple/triplex/semi-detached

4%

West Coquitlam

29%

Secondary suite

1%

Condominium

1%

Other

1%

Children in Household

70 ‒ © Ipsos

All respondents (n=500)

With children

32%

Without children

68%

APPENDIX: SURVEY TRACKING

71 ‒ © Ipsos

Quality of Life OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE 2003

2004

2005

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

2006

2007

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

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2021

(n=400)

(n=665)

(n=400)

(n=400)

(n=602)

(n=400)

(n=501)

(n=500)

(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%

97%

Very good

37%

38%

35%

25%

28%

29%

30%

41%

47%

46%

50%

51%

49%

48%

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

2021

(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)

(n=500)

+11

+2

+2

+8

+18

+12

+12

+10

+11

+18

+11

+15

+17

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?

72 ‒ © Ipsos

Significantly higher/ lower than 2019.

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

2021

(n=400)

(n=665)

(n=400)

(n=400)

(n=602)

(n=400)

(n=501)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

Social (NET)

6%

1%

7%

6%

11%

13%

7%

7%

5%

8%

5%

8%

17%

22%

27%

25%

23%

Transportation (NET)

47%

36%

41%

51%

35%

44%

41%

35%

40%

45%

37%

39%

35%

36%

36%

34%

15%

Public safety (NET)

21%

20%

22%

34%

24%

21%

24%

14%

13%

10%

10%

11%

8%

7%

5%

5%

13%

8%

8%

8%

14%

6%

4%

4%

4%

9%

7%

6%

7%

6%

7%

7%

7%

10%

3%

9%

4%

8%

4%

8%

10%

6%

10%

7%

7%

7%

9%

11%

7%

10%

8%

8%

7%

6%

7%

8%

11%

3%

5%

5%

6%

7%

10%

10%

10%

15%

15%

7%

Healthcare (NET)

5%

5%

8%

6%

3%

2%

3%

2%

5%

4%

2%

2%

1%

6%

4%

3%

6%

COVID-19 (NET)

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

6%

Taxation/municipal government spending (NET)

12%

14%

7%

9%

9%

6%

11%

19%

15%

14%

15%

11%

11%

6%

9%

8%

5%

Education (NET)

22%

9%

11%

8%

10%

6%

8%

13%

10%

8%

10%

9%

7%

6%

5%

6%

5%

Environment (NET)

8%

5%

4%

7%

5%

5%

7%

4%

4%

5%

2%

5%

2%

4%

3%

4%

3%

Economy (NET)

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

3%

3%

2%

3%

4%

2%

1%

0%

1%

3%

3%

Parks, recreation, culture (NET) Municipal government services (NET) Growth & development (NET)

Note: Public safety was labelled as crime in previous surveys.

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?

73 ‒ © Ipsos

Significantly higher/ lower than 2019.

Satisfaction with City Services THE OVERALL LEVEL AND QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF COQUITLAM 2004 (n=400)

2005

2006

2007

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

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2021

(n=400)

(n=665)

(n=400)

(n=400)

(n=602)

(n=400)

(n=501)

(n=500)

(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%

96%

Very satisfied

37%

36%

25%

37%

32%

25%

34%

34%

37%

44%

39%

37%

39%

39%

46%

48%

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

2021

(n=400)

(n=400)

(n=665)

(n=400)

(n=400)

(n=602)

(n=400)

(n=501)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

Public works, including drinking water quality & sewers

96%

95%

97%

97%

98%

98%

98%

98%

98%

98%

98%

97%

98%

Fire services

97%

95%

96%

95%

93%

96%

98%

96%

98%

98%

98%

97%

96%

Parks, trails, & other green space

94%

96%

93%

95%

94%

96%

97%

97%

96%

96%

97%

96%

95%

Recreational & cultural opportunities

90%

90%

90%

91%

91%

92%

93%

93%

94%

90%

92%

90%

94%

Police services

92%

90%

90%

93%

92%

92%

95%

93%

95%

96%

96%

96%

93%

Recycling & garbage services

86%

81%

76%

88%

84%

88%

92%

88%

91%

88%

86%

91%

93%

Sports fields

89%

91%

89%

89%

90%

92%

94%

93%

93%

95%

92%

92%

93%

Road maintenance

66%

75%

72%

74%

71%

76%

83%

80%

81%

74%

83%

81%

83%

Neighborhood planning

82%

79%

80%

79%

68%

78%

80%

77%

79%

77%

75%

75%

78%

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)

74 ‒ © Ipsos

Significantly higher/ lower than 2019.

Importance of City Services 2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2021

(n=400)

(n=400)

(n=665)

(n=400)

(n=400)

(n=602)

(n=400)

(n=501)

(n=500)

(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%

99%

Fire services

100%

99%

98%

99%

97%

98%

98%

98%

98%

99%

98%

99%

98%

Recycling & garbage services

98%

98%

98%

98%

98%

95%

96%

96%

98%

97%

93%

98%

98%

Parks, trails, & other green space

96%

97%

95%

94%

93%

96%

95%

96%

97%

97%

96%

96%

98%

Police services

99%

98%

98%

97%

97%

96%

98%

99%

99%

99%

97%

97%

96%

Road maintenance

97%

97%

99%

96%

96%

97%

97%

98%

98%

99%

98%

98%

96%

Recreational & cultural opportunities

93%

90%

92%

89%

90%

90%

91%

91%

92%

94%

90%

94%

94%

Neighborhood planning

92%

92%

91%

88%

86%

90%

93%

92%

93%

94%

93%

94%

93%

Sports fields

83%

82%

83%

83%

82%

84%

84%

86%

84%

81%

80%

88%

83%

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.

75 ‒ © Ipsos

Significantly higher/ lower than 2019.

Financial Planning

2004 (n=400)

2005

2006

2007

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

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2021

(n=400)

(n=665)

(n=400)

(n=400)

(n=602)

(n=400)

(n=501)

(n=500)

(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%

89%

Very good value

25%

27%

22%

21%

22%

20%

17%

18%

23%

23%

22%

20%

21%

24%

26%

23%

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

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2021

(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) (n=500) Total Increase Taxes

58%

48%

47%

55%

58%

55%

46%

46%

45%

43%

48%

53%

54%

51%

49%

59%

54%

Total Cut Services

32%

37%

30%

35%

31%

26%

41%

44%

46%

43%

41%

34%

34%

38%

39%

29%

33%

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?

76 ‒ © Ipsos

Significantly higher/ lower than 2019.

Customer Service CONTACT WITH CITY LAST 12 MONTHS

% Yes

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2021

(n=400)

(n=665)

(n=400)

(n=400)

(n=602)

(n=400)

(n=501)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

(n=500)

41%

44%

47%

46%

47%

52%

51%

44%

50%

50%

46%

35%

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

2021

(n=180)

(n=207)

(n=274)

(n=247)

(n=269)

(n=264)

(n=246)

(n=192)

Overall service you received

75%

89%

87%

88%

82%

87%

88%

91%

The courteousness of the staff

89%

92%

93%

92%

93%

97%

93%

96%

The ability of staff to understand your needs

84%

87%

89%

87%

83%

87%

85%

96%

Staff's knowledge

80%

92%

86%

87%

85%

88%

88%

95%

Staff's helpfulness

82%

93%

89%

89%

84%

88%

90%

93%

The ease of reaching staff

82%

91%

85%

86%

82%

86%

88%

90%

The speed and timeliness of service

74%

85%

88%

85%

77%

83%

88%

88%

Staff's ability to resolve your issue

71%

80%

79%

79%

75%

77%

78%

83%

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)

77 ‒ © Ipsos

Significantly higher/ lower than 2019.