U-PASS Advisory Board Regular Meeting January 8th, 2016 I.

Present:  Adam Khan – Advisory Board Chair (ASUW)  Hester Serebrin – Advisory Board Vice Chair (GPSS)  Thomas Crowe – ASUW Representative  Shreya Ahluwalia – ASUW Representative  Tyler Wu – ASUW Representative  Cooper Smith – U-PASS Liaison  Joshua Kavanagh – Transportation Services  Rene Singleton – UW Student Life  Celeste Gilman – Transportation Services  Zachary Howard – Transportation Services

II.

5 Minute Public Comment Period Acknowledged

III.

Agenda introduced Motion to move GPSS Presentation Update to item two, and preview of financial presentation to end of agenda. Motion approved. Agenda approved with amendments at 12:35pm Thomas: Not an amendment, but for the record I would like to start the discussion on NightRide shuttle service this quarter.

IV.

Item 1 – Introductions, new member Shreya: Senior, Political Science and English major. This is my first time working with ASUW. *Existing members all introduce themselves

V.

Item 2 – AB Presentation to GPSS (Jan 13) Update Hester: We are on the agenda for next Wednesday, January the 13th for the GPSS meeting in the evening. Monica will present on behalf of the AB and Transportation Services (TS) staff will be attending as well. I should get an email on the specific time of the presentation soon.

VI.

Item 3 – Distance Learning: Charging Legislation and Next Steps Adam: The board takes action with resolutions. The other way we can address this question is through a conversation between the ASUW President, GPSS President, and their finance people.

Tyler: I am currently setting a meeting between the fee chairs, myself, the GPSS president and our finance people, and we will have that meeting soon and I will report back on what we cover. Adam: So for clarification, is charging legislation the item we are discussing here? Celeste: The handout you have now is the resolution that was passed by ASUW Senate to raise the U-PASS fee, and what is highlighted is the section on what the AB was charged with doing as it relates to distance learning students. Adam: The highlighted section states: “THAT, the students urge the U-PASS advisory board to assess and report back on the feasibility of exempting students whose physical presence is not required in the U-PASS service area…” Rene: When you have a resolution like this, the ‘THAT’ statement is really a recommendation. They’ve asked you guys to do an assessment. Note there is nothing here that states how it is done, what is done, when it is done. In light of what Tyler said, we may want to wait before we hear back from their group before we move this along. But then it could be a small statement that says, “Hey, here is what we discussed and recommended,” and that’s it. Josh: I think the informal conversation that is happening now, is rather than opening Pandora’s Box, is to send them a statement and that’s it. Given that nobody seems to be knocking on the door saying “Hey, when is this report coming back” it’s really up to you how you want to respond to this resolution. You may want to respond or based on the current environment wait and see if the environment changes. Celeste: I think a written report would be valuable. That way there is a record of what was discussed, and how it was communicated. Rene: I don’t have an issue with a written report, but the thing is you are only giving a report on where you are at, at this point, and so really you are writing a note to future ABs about where you were at this time on this issue. Zack: It may be valuable to have something more timely, in the vein of “We’ve evaluated the current feasibility, and desirability, and it is in-line with previous AB reports.” VII.

Item 4 Gap Quarter U-PASS Discussion Zack: To start the conversation, I have a hand-out that shows a model of what it would look like to have a gap-quarter program. The TDM fee and Central Admin fee amount to about a third of the program’s subsidization. When we talk about an opt-in summer program for students, the assumption is that these fees will not be available. Celeste: And that is a policy decision you would want to consider. The amount of those funds is fixed. The assumption is that regular students wouldn’t want to be subsidizing summer students. Josh: Current quarter students’ fee dollars subsidizing students who are not enrolled in the current quarter could potentially be a drain on the program. We already get significant concern

from the administration regarding the 10% requirement, and having it grow further to meet students who are not active would be very difficult. Currently, the TDM funds generated through the summer only go towards funding the Faculty pass program. Tyler: So to reiterate, there are three pools of funding going into U-PASS, but during the summer there would be only one pool. So we are asking the question, “Are we willing to let summer students benefit from these other U-PASS fees (Admin and TDM)?” Celeste: This model assumes the answer to that question is ‘no’ but that is a policy question for you to consider. Zack: Students who are using U-PASS during the summer are assumed to have a demand of 5 round trips per week (likely working, or have an internship). The cost for boarding comes from our cost projections using the employee opt-in U-PASS, and how much each card tap costs the U-PASS program. Another assumption is that administrative costs are at 2.6%, which is an average proportion of our Admin fee to the other campuses. We administer U-PASS centrally, and we charge them a slight overhead fee on top of the transaction fee of using U-PASS. With all those assumptions in place, there are 12 weeks between the U-PASS shut off in spring and reactivation in the fall. If we tally up the costs without any other amount of revenue subsidy that would cost a total of $278.26 per user. Then there is a weighted average value of $284.10. Then the metro 1-zone pass for three months which would cost $297, and last the out-of-pocket costs for this number of trips assuming the peak 1-zone fare from metro, at $330. Then there is another table that shows the percentage savings for U-PASS. Thomas: Speaking from my own experience as someone who worked at UW last summer and purchased an employee pass, I think that is what most students are comparing to. So how does this compare to the summer employee pass? Zack: The reason for the difference is that there is a smaller variable bind pool than the Universal Student U-PASS. So for this gap quarter model the general bind power is a lot lower, and the intensity of use is significantly higher, therefor the higher costs. Thomas: So then the employee pass would be a lot better value than this modeled program without subsidy? Zack: Yes. Rene: Is there a way to promote the employee U-PASS? Not a lot of staff know what they can do for their student employees. Josh: It depends on student employee status as well. Celeste: It is definitely something we can explore. Rene: For example, during the summer students can work for 40 hours a week, and I’m speaking to that case of how we can support that category of student.

Josh: The tools available to deal with students engaged in full time campus employment is very different than students who are having a gap over the summer. And we’ll have different ways we could possibly respond to that. Hester: I’m trying to weigh the costs and benefits of doing this. So having just a 4 month pass is only a $20 savings, so if we did this, would there be a chunk of change that would be needed to implement it (administratively)? Celeste: Very much so. And it is very hard to predict how many people would use it and how frequently. And so there is significant risk as well. You set the rate too high and there will be lower participation, and then the implementation costs will not be covered. Thomas: I’m thinking in terms of suggestions about action items we could do on this. Who is and is not eligible for the employee pass? Perhaps we could send out info to staff on this. Also instead of having a separate pass, we could make it available on the Husky Card, rather than a separate student employee pass as it currently stands. Zack: The point here is that there is often an assumption among students interested in a gap quarter pass that it would be charged at $80 or at the rate of the employee pass, and what this model shows is that the pass would have to be more expensive than that if there is no other subsidization of the program. Josh: At one end you have gap quarter students only benefiting from the buy in power, and on the other end you have other students benefiting from socialization and subsidy. The middle ground is for gap quarter students, even though we cannot get the subsidy for them, to enjoy the socialization. It would be active students supporting inactive but in the spirit of students supporting each other. Celeste: By socialization I want to clarify what you meant? Josh: I mean the option to have active Universal students pay in to a system which would subsidize gap quarter students, with the assumption that current students will one day benefit from such a structure. Hester: I’d like to throw out the idea of a survey to understand how many students would consider buying this and what they would use it for, in order to have a better estimate of scale. *Hester departs Adam: We will end the meeting here. Celeste: I’d like to note that at the next meeting we will have an update on the U-PASS’ financial situation. Expect it to take the majority of the time. Meeting adjourned at 1:18pm.