U-PASS Advisory Board Regular Meeting January 27th, 2017 HUB 307 Present Hakikat Bains, ASUW Director Of Campus Partnerships Alissa Mustre, ASUW Representative Adam Khan, ASUW Representative Anna Wittow, GPSS Representative Cooper Smith, GPSS Representative Lucas Simons, Advisory Board Staff Tam Kutzmark, Transportation Advisor Rene Singleton, Student Life Advisor Anne Eskridge, Transportation Advisor Roy Lirio, Fiscal Services Advisor Andrew Monusko, Fiscal Services Advisor I.

Public Comment Period 

II.

Agenda approval  

III.

Everyone introduces themselves Agenda is approved

Approval of Previous Meeting’s Minutes 

IV.

No public comment

Minutes approved

Q&A on U-PASS fee on tuition statement 

  

   



Roy introduces himself and gives a background on Fiscal Services involvement with U-PASS advisory board. He clarifies that Fiscal Services is making a change to their fee-based system, not the whole tuition billing system as had been suggested in a previous advisory board meeting. Roy shares published tuition rates and current tuition system (attached).. Cooper asks why the U-PASS is separate from all the other fees. Andrew says tuition is comprised of six components: operating fee, SAF, technology fee, IMA building fee, facility renovation fee. Roy clarifies that first page that shows the tuition breakdown shows how all of those fees Andrew mentioned roll into the full tuition fee. Cooper asks what the mechanics are of how those non-U-PASS fees are implemented. Andrew says they’re approved by the Board of Regents and implemented by planning and budgeting. Adam asks if SAF is established by state law. Roy says the Board of Regents determine level of SAF. He says the students should refer to the minutes from the Board of Regents July meeting to see how they determined those fees. Cooper asks if there’s a similar mechanism for U-PASS.



  

 

  

 



 



Anne responds that it had to be approved through the Board of Regents originally. She also discusses the section of state law governing student fees and the process students went through to charge fees to themselves like SAF and other fees. Adam says one of prime concerns is that placement of fee on tuition statement is misleading because it makes it look optional. Anne responds that she understands concern and would like to know if that is changeable as well. Refers to Rene for history of the way it was listed. Rene explains that the current tuition system was set up before the U-PASS was implemented and that there were limited options for the way to list it on the tuition statement. Anne asks about technology fee being younger than U-PASS but still appearing with the other non-U-PASS fees in the tuition breakdown. Andrew responds that it is structured that way because all other fees are variable and U-PASS is not. He refers to the final page in handout that shows how fees in the tuition breakdown are calculated. He says because all the fees in the tuition breakdown are pegged to the number of credits they would not be able to incorporate a flat fee, like the U-PASS, in this section. He says the tuition statement refers directly to this billing database so the U-PASS appears separately. Roy mentions the system is about 30 years old and there is a long term goal to upgrade that system. He goes through the timeline of when they are updating various systems across the university. He says they are about seven to ten years away from updating billing system. Cooper says his experience as U-PASS liaison is that a lot of students saw it as an optional fee because of the way it appears on the bill. Andrew mentions it has appeared on the tuition statement that way since the UPASS was implemented before it became mandatory. Rene mentions that when the mandatory U-PASS was implemented there was a lot of negative feedback including long public comment periods at each meeting. She also mentions the how extensively the advisory board and Transportation Services made available information on the new mandatory program. She suggests the board should have more information readily available to students if they are concerned about them not understanding the mandatory nature of the fee. The group discusses the various sources of information that are available to student regarding the mandatory U-PASS fee. Cooper says the issue of students not knowing it is a mandatory fee has mostly passed and the issue now is establishing the mandatory student U-PASS as an institutionalized program. Roy says the issue of placement on the tuition statement is with the current billing database/tuition system but the feedback is very helpful in determining how to change the system in the future. Anne asks if all the other fees are connected to number of credits. Roy refers to the front page of the handout that shows graduated tuition fees. He mentions many program fees go directly to other departments (PCE) etc. that pay tuition separately so the students have to go through two different billing systems. Adam asks if anyone has more questions.



V.

(Roy emailed Lucas after the meeting and noted that he forgot to mention one other reason the U-PASS fee is listed separately from other fees. That is the Internal Revenue Services does not consider the U-PASS fee as a qualified education expense for tax reporting purposes)

Discussion on no rate change statement  







     

Adam reviews last week’s meeting and how the projections worked out so no fee increase is needed for the next year. Tam refers to last week’s meeting minutes reading the paragraph that explains how Transportation Services came to the projections for revenue. Tam underscores Zack’s suggestion to look forward at future possible fee increases with Metro or Sound Transit fare increases. Anne adds that they have better, more recent information in terms of transfers and inter-zone trips, so costs are lower than they initially thought in November. Overall, less rides and less expensive fares are being charged so costs are lower. Adam mentions that they decided at the last meeting that they want to make sure student governments are apprised of fee process. Rene asks about sending the statement to both senates. Adam refers to forwarding clause in the statement. Rene suggests trying to bring more attention to the fee not increasing across campus. She suggests contacting students through all-campus emails, RSOs, student newspapers etc. She says this will also make sure future boards have something positive to stand on. Haki says ASUW can add it to all campus emails and reach out to Daily reporters. Anna says she can go through GPSS channels to get word out. Adam suggests grammatical edits to statement. Adam asks Haki if they can send the statement to both the ASUW Board of Directors and the Senate. Rene suggests making it more clear in the statement that the fee is not being raised. Group approves statement with edits

OUTCOMES: Board members will go through appropriate channels to get out message on no U-PASS fee change. Haki through ASUW channels and Anna through GPSS channels. VI.

Other business  Adam suggest the board have a discussion on future work plan items and review that at the next meeting.  Cooper says he would like to follow up on his concern with how they can go about increasing the administration subsidy to the U-PASS program. He would also like to learn more about how parking fees will look in future if parking revenue decreases as more student use U-PASS and other means to get to campus. He says he wants to make sure U-PASS is maintained into the future. He says this would be something to discuss with administration in conversations about U-PASS subsidy.  Rene mentions this would be a good time to get ready for next year in case there is a fee change process, including making sure people are getting appointed to the Advisory Board and trained. She suggests that can occur over summer so



 

the Advisory Board is established by the start of fall quarterd and can start work on potential increase right away given tight timeline for rate increase process. Cooper clarifies what Rene was suggesting in terms of planning meetings for next year’s board. Cooper says there was a process like that last year. Adam clarifies that some of the incoming board members joined at the end of last year. Cooper suggests starting the appointment process at the beginning of spring quarter and advertising towards the end of winter quarter. Groups decides not to meet next week and will discuss planning at future meetings. Meeting adjourns.

OUTCOMES: Next meeting will be February 10th. Board will add planning recruitment and training process for next year’s board to their work plan this year.