Unfavourable findings for Mitchell Shire in 2023 Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey

There was a pattern of decline during the past four years for all core measures and Mitchell Shire ranked lower than the state-wide average in all 21 service areas.

Core Measures

The core measures are overall performance, value for money, consultation and engagement, community decisions, sealed local roads, waste management, customer service and overall council direction.

Overall performance saw a five point decline since 2022.

Customer service ratings have reverted to the record low observed in 2016.

Value for money has deteriorated seven index points in two years.

One in five residents (21%) rated the value for money they get from the Council's infrastructure and services as either ‘very good’ or ‘good’.

In contrast, close to half (48%) rate it as ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’, and a further 27% rate Council as ‘average’ in terms of providing value for money.

Community consultation has only declined slightly, from 50 points to 48.

Making community decisions has dropped six points, from 51 to 45 in two years. However it is still above the 2016 low of 41.

Waste management has improved by five points from its 2020 low, however it’s still significantly below the large rural and statewide average.

Customer service has been on a steady decline since 2019 and now matches its 2016 record low.

The overall direction of the council has seen a consistent decline, plummeting 14 points since 2018, though it hasn't reached its 2016 low.

Unsurprisingly, given the damage caused by the 2022 floods, public perception of the quality of sealed local roads has seen a steep decline.

At 33 index points, it holds the lowest score in the core measures. The only lower score in the whole survey was the individual service area of unsealed local roads, which scored one point lower.

Individual service areas

Mitchell Shire matches the Large Rural group average for councils in nine of the 21 individual service areas. Council performs significantly lower than the Large Rural group average for councils the remaining 12 individual service areas.

Most service areas have shown a gradual downward trend, marked by incremental year-on-year decreases rather than abrupt dips in community satisfaction.

There were some exceptions with large drops in satisfaction scores. They were the enforcement of local laws, environmental sustainability, planning and building permits, population growth, sealed local roads and unsealed roads.

The appearance of public areas remains Council’s top performing area.

The core measures and individual service areas can be compared to the rural grouping and statewide average in the tables.

It is important to note that these rankings reflect rate payer perceptions, rather than actual service delivery.