The document summarizes Capital Metro's community engagement process for its FY2011 budget development. It provided context on the budget challenges through presentations and surveys. Over 400 surveys were collected through public meetings, neighborhood meetings, online, and from employees. Respondents generally preferred preserving service levels and raising fares over other revenue options. They also favored adding bus and rail service if possible, and continuing stop improvements. Capital Metro learned participants had a better understanding of the budget after engagement and found the process useful. It plans to decrease emphasis on public forums and increase online engagement and surveys.

1. Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Development
Community Engagement Summary
June 2010

2. Our Goal
Educate community about our budget and challenges
Meaningfully engage the community
Educate & Engage as broadly as possible

3. What We Did

4. What We Did
Provide context for budget development
– presentation & video
Preference survey
– interactive audience response
– online & paper format
6 budget development workshops
Neighborhood & community organization meetings

5. KEY:
Blue Markers = Public Meetings
Red Markers = Neighborhood
Meetings

6. What We Did
Internal engagement (employees)
Online engagement

7. How We Spread the Word

8. How We Spread the Word
Passenger notices on vehicles
Advertising
Email
– rider alerts
– MetroConnections newsletter
– Partner organization newsletters
Social media

9. Who Participated

10. Who Participated 492 total surveys
27 participants at 6 budget development workshops
58 responses at 11 neighborhood/community meetings
27 employee paper surveys Budget Workshops,
6%
380 online Neighborhood
Meetings, 12%
Employee Surveys,
6%
Online Surveys,
79%

11. Who Participated
26%
age
25%
20%
17%
7%
3%
1%
0%
Under 18 yrs. 18 – 24 yrs. 25 – 34 yrs. 35-44 yrs 45-54 yrs 55 – 64 yrs. 65 – 73 yrs 74 + yrs.

12. Who Participated
62%
Capital Metro services used
22% 25%
15%
6%
2%
MetroBus MetroExpress MetroRail MetroAccess Metro RideShare I Don’t Use Capital
Metro

13. Who Participated
42%
area of residence
16%
13%
11%
6% 8%
3%
0% 1%
Central Southeast Southwest Northeast Northwest Leander Manor Del Valle Other
Austin Austin Austin Austin Austin

14. Who Participated
how well do you understand our budget?
34% 33%
13% 13%
7%
Very Well Well Not Very Not at All No Answer
Well

15. What We Heard

16. What We Heard
rank options for increasing revenue
1
2
2.6 2.7
3.1 3.1
3 3.3
4
5
Increase fares for UT & Increase base fare $.25 Increase Cost of Passes Increase MetroAccess Eliminate Free Fares
ACC Students and passes Only Fares
porportionately

17. What We Heard
rank options for reducing cost
1
1.9
2 2.2
2.5
3
3.4
4
5
Contract out more Reduce Capital Reduce MetroAccess Reduce Bus Service
service at lower cost Spending Service

18. What We Heard
rank options for building reserves
1
2.1
2
2.6 2.7
3 3.2
4 4.2
5
Contract out more Reduce Capital Increase Fares Reduce MetroAccess Reduce Bus Service
service at lower cost Spending Service

19. What We Heard
rank options for spending additional funds
1
2 2.2 2.3
2.6 2.7
3
4
5
Add Local Bus Service Add MetroRail Service Add Express Bus Increase Reserves
Service

20. What We Heard
what MetroRail service should be prioritized?
53%
24% 24%
Increase Weekend Service Increase Midday Service Do Not Increase Service

21. What We Heard
rank optional capital projects for FY2011
1
2.1 2.2
2
2.7 2.8
3
4
5
Shelters and benches Bus stop accessibility Do not add any new Buying New Buses
at Bus Stops capital projects

22. What We Heard
rank optional capital projects for next 5 years
1 (select top 3)
1.6
1.8
1.9
2.0
2 2.1
2.2 2.2
3
MetroRail MetroAccess Bus Stop Safety & Buying new New Transit Freight Rail
system Scheduling Improvements Security buses Centers Improvements
improvements System
Improvements

23. What We Learned
General Preferences for FY2011 Budget
– preserve service levels
– across the board fare increase slightly more tolerable than other
revenue options
– add service, if feasible
-MetroBus
-MetroRail weekends
- continue bus stop improvements programs
- General Preference for Longer-term
- pursue contracting out more service to reduce costs and build reserves,
if feasible
- capital investments in MetroRail and MetroBus stops

24. What We Learned
how well do you understand our budget?
58%
Before
34% 33% After
25%
13% 13%
7% 9%
6%
2%
Very Well Well Not Very Well Not at All No Answer

25. What We Learned
how useful was this meeting?
47%
19% 19%
15%
0%
Very Useful Useful Not Very Useful Not Useful at All No Answer

26. What We Learned
Engagement Process
– decrease emphasis on Capital Metro hosted public forums
– continue use of videos to provide context
– continue use of surveys and work to broaden sample
– investigate webinars and online meeting formats

27. Next Steps
Thank participants June
Obtain Feedback from Board June
Finance develops proposed FY2011 Budget July - August
Draft FY2011 Budget presented to Board August
Report back to community August
– survey results
– how preferences are reflected in proposed budget
– obtain feedback
Public hearing on proposed FY11 Budget September
Board adopts FY11 Budget September
Final report to community October