2013 Budget Planning General Population Survey Final Report June 28, 2013

City of Leduc 2013 General Population Budget Survey

TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

3

1.0 STUDY BACKGROUND

4

2.0

5

METHODOLOGY

2.1 Project Initiation and Questionnaire Review

5

2.2 Survey Population and Data Collection

6

2.3 Data Analysis and Project Documentation

7

3.0

8

STUDY FINDINGS

3.1 City Council Budget Process

8

3.2 City of Leduc Services and Infrastructure

48

3.3 Respondent Demographics

54

APPENDIX A – SURVEY INSTRUMENT

56

2

City of Leduc 2013 General Population Budget Survey

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS In spring 2013, The City of Leduc commissioned Banister Research & Consulting Inc. (Banister Research) to conduct the 2013 City of Leduc Budget Planning General Population Survey. The survey was first conducted in 2012, and data from last year has been used for benchmarking and compared to 2013, where appropriate. The primary purpose of this research was to assess the views of City of Leduc (“the City”) residents concerning the budgetary planning process. In total, 461 randomly selected City of Leduc residents completed the survey. The following summary outlines the key findings from the 2013 City of Leduc Budget Planning General Population Survey. City Council Budget Process To begin, respondents were asked to state what they believed were the most important priorities facing Leduc City Council concerning the budget process. Respondents most frequently mentioned road and sidewalk maintenance (27%, up from 21% in 2012), improvements to infrastructure in general (21%, similar to 20% in 2012) and schools and education concerns (19%, up from 11% in 2012) as top priorities; Respondents were asked to rate the value they received for their tax dollars. Threequarters (75%) of respondents indicated they received “good” (39%), “very good” (33%) or “excellent” (3%) value (comparable to 71% in 2012). In contrast, 25% of respondents provided a rating of “fair” (17%) or “poor” (8%); Respondents were asked how they would adjust the variable spending categories for 2013. The areas in which respondents would most like to see increased budget allocation were Public Services (32%), snow removal (29%) and Police Protection and Enforcement Services (28%); With respect to decreases in budget allocation, respondents most frequently stated funding for the Leduc Recreation Center should be decreased (37%). Respondents also stated often that Public Transit (14%), Community Development and Service Planning (12%) and Library Services (12%) should have decreased allocation in the budget; Overall, respondents indicated that the budget allocation in 2013 for all ten (10) areas should remain the same in 2014. Respondents would like the funding for both parks and athletic field maintenance (76%) and fire and ambulance service (75%), especially, to remain the same; 3

City of Leduc 2013 General Population Budget Survey

Respondents were then asked to state any additional feedback they had regarding their choices for variable spending. Two percent (5%, up from 2% in 2012) of respondents indicated that the City Council needs to stop over spending. However, the majority of respondents (80%) did not provide any additional feedback; Respondents were asked what additional projects or initiatives the Leduc City Council and Administration should consider when planning the 2014 budget. Respondents most frequently mentioned attending to traffic flow and control issues (7%, similar to 6% in 2012), while 5% mentioned a spray park (similar to 7% in 2012) and 4% mentioned balancing the budget (similar to 2% in 2012). Sixty percent (60%) of respondents were unable to provide any suggestions; and Respondents were asked if they had any further suggestions regarding plans for the 2014 budget. Respondents most frequently stated the City should plan the budget better (in general) (4%, similar to 2% in 2012), improve traffic flow and control (2%, comparable to 2% in 2012) and reduce taxes or limit tax increases (2%, comparable to 2% in 2012). City of Leduc Services and Infrastructure Twenty-nine percent (29%) of respondents stated they would support an increase in taxes to fund growth needs, maintain infrastructure and enhance services. About onefifth of respondents each supported an increase to maintain all existing infrastructure and services (19%) or a cut to existing services in order to maintain current taxes (18%); and To conclude the survey, respondents were asked to indicate how effective the research approach was as a means of gathering feedback concerning the City of Leduc budget process. Nearly half (48%) of the respondents stated the research approach was effective (4 or 5 out of 5), while slightly fewer respondents (40%) felt neutral to the approach (3 out of 5).

4

City of Leduc 2013 General Population Budget Survey

1.0

STUDY BACKGROUND

In spring 2013, The City of Leduc commissioned Banister Research & Consulting Inc. (Banister Research) to conduct the 2013 City of Leduc Budget Planning General Population Survey. The survey was first conducted in 2012, and data from last year has been used for benchmarking and compared to 2013, where appropriate. The primary purpose of this research was to assess the views of City of Leduc (“the City”) residents concerning the budgetary planning process. In total, 461 randomly selected City of Leduc residents completed the survey. This report outlines the results for the 2013 City of Leduc Budget Planning General Population Survey.

2.0

METHODOLOGY

All components of the project were designed and executed in close consultation with the City of Leduc (the Client).

A detailed description of each task of the project is outlined in the

remainder of this section.

2.1

Project Initiation and Questionnaire Review

At the outset of the project, all background information relevant to the study was identified and subsequently reviewed by Banister Research. The consulting team familiarized itself with the objectives of the Client, ensuring a full understanding of the issues and concerns to be addressed in the 2013 project. The result of this task was an agreement on the research methodology, a detailed work plan and project initiation. The 2013 survey instrument was based on the previous 2012 version. This maintained consistency between years and allowed data to be compared, where appropriate. The survey included a mixture of qualitative and quantitative questions to elicit a more in-depth investigation of the issues and concerns regarding the assignment. Once the Client vetted the

5

City of Leduc 2013 General Population Budget Survey

draft survey instrument, revisions were made and the questionnaire was finalized. A copy of the final questionnaire is provided in Appendix A.

2.2

Survey Population and Data Collection

A general population telephone sample was purchased, from which potential participants were contacted and recruited to complete the survey. Participants recruited to the study were then directed to the web-based version of the survey. This methodology was recommended because of the visually-oriented nature of the concepts that were tested in the survey. In addition, a hardcopy version of the survey was available, upon request, for those who were unable to access the web-based survey. Due to the design and general population sample of this survey, results are statistically representative. For the 2013 analysis, weights were assigned to the ages of respondents to ensure that their representation in the City-wide sample was proportionate to their representation in the City of Leduc population. The following outlines the weighting factors utilized in this research.

Age 18 to 34 years 35 to 54 years 55 years or older Not stated

32 36

Number of Completed Interviews 68 181

31

208

0.6

129

1

4

1

4

Desired Percent (%) of Population

Weighting Factor

Representative # of Interviews

2.4 0.9

166 162

It is important to note that this report provides a detailed description of the survey findings based on City-wide weighted results, or all respondents. Surveys were completed with City of Leduc residents from May 1st to May 31st, 2013. Over that time, a total of 461 surveys were completed, providing a margin of error of 4.6% at the 95% confidence level or 19 times out of 20.

6

City of Leduc 2013 General Population Budget Survey

2.3

Data Analysis and Project Documentation

While data was being collected, Banister Research provided either a written or verbal progress report to the Client. Upon completion of the data collection, a topline PowerPoint report of the findings for closed-ended questions was provided to the Client. After the surveys were completed and verified, the lead consultant reviewed the list of responses to each open-ended or verbatim question and then a code list was established, based on the previous 2012 code list. To ensure consistency of interpretation, the same team of coders was assigned to this project from start to finish. The coding supervisor verified at least 20% of each coder’s work. Once the responses were fully coded and entered into the data file, computer programs were written to check the data for quality and consistency. Data analysis included cross-tabulation, whereby the frequency and percentage distribution of the results for each question were broken down based on respondent characteristics and responses (e.g., demographics, etc.). Statistical analysis included a Z-test to determine if there were significant differences in responses between respondent subgroups. Results were reported as statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. Tabulations of the 2013 City of Leduc Budget Planning General Population Survey have been provided under a separate cover. It is important to note that any discrepancies between charts, graphs or tables are due to rounding of the numbers. A profile of the characteristics of respondents is provided in Section 3.3 of this report. This report provides a detailed description of the 2013 City of Leduc Budget Planning General Population Survey findings.

7

City of Leduc 2013 General Population Budget Survey

3.0

STUDY FINDINGS

Results of the study are presented as they relate to the specific topic areas addressed by the survey. The reader should note, when reading the report that the term significant refers to “statistical significance” at a 95% confidence interval, and is not to be interpreted as an indicator of order or magnitude.

3.1 City Council Budget Process To begin, respondents were asked to state what they believed were the most important priorities facing Leduc City Council concerning the budget process. Respondents most frequently mentioned road and sidewalk maintenance (27%, up from 21% in 2012), improvements to infrastructure in general (21%, similar to 20% in 2012) and schools and education concerns (19%, up from 11% in 2012) as top priorities. In addition, 17% of respondents each mentioned budget concerns (up from 13% in 2012) as well as controlling maintaining taxes (16%, up from 11% in 2012). Additionally, one in ten (10%) respondents could not provide a response. See Table 1, on the following page.

8

City of Leduc 2013 General Population Budget Survey Table 1

What are the most important priorities facing the City of Leduc Council today related to the budget process? Percent of Respondents* 2013 2012 (n=461) (n=401) Road/sidewalk maintenance/snow removal/more sidewalks 27 21 Improving infrastructure (general) 21 20 Schools/education concerns 19 11 Budget concerns/having a surplus/better budgeting 17 13 Maintaining taxes/keeping taxes the same/lowering taxes 16 11 Traffic/traffic control/flow/improve flow through road developments 12 17 Increasing drug problems/crime/police/safety/bylaw enforcement 11 8 Improve emergency services (e.g. fire/ambulance) 10 10 Maintaining/adding parks/green space 10 9 Maintaining existing programs/services with more funds for services 10 6 Maintenance of City facilities/recreation facilities/library 9 7 Better Municipal Planning 8 4 Public transit services needed/should be improved 7 5 Controlling overcrowding/rapid growth/future growth 6 13 Providing opportunities/activities for youth (e.g. spray park) 4 4 Available/affordable housing 3 1 Affordable/available recreation services/fitness programs 4 3 Encouragement of businesses/amenities/local business to increase 4 3 tax base More accommodation for seniors/senior services 3 3 More citizen involvement 3 3 Health care concerns/more facilities/expanding the hospital 3 3 Social services/supports 3 2 32 Other (less than 3% of respondents in 2013) 26 10 Don’t know/not stated 14 *Multiple responses

9

City of Leduc 2013 General Population Budget Survey

Next, respondents were asked to rate the value they received for their tax dollars. Threequarters (75%) of respondents indicated they received “good” (39%), “very good” (33%) or “excellent” (3%) value (comparable to 71% in 2012). In contrast, 25% of respondents provided a rating of “fair” (17%) or “poor” (8%). See Figure 1, below. Figure 1

Value of Tax Dollars Received 3% 6%

Excellent value

33% 30%

Very good value

39% 35%

Good value 17% 19%

Fair value 8% 9%

Poor value