University Transportation Committee Minutes March 23, 2015 – 11:30 a.m. – Gerberding 142 Present: student representatives faculty representatives John Schaufelberger Chuck Treser staff representatives James Whitefish, WFSE Laura Harrington, SEIU 925

operational stakeholders Dan Erickson, ICA John Shaheen, Business Mobility Programs Josh Kavanagh, Transportation Services Tom Rietkerk, SLU Jeremy Eknoian, Real Estate Office Dave Amburgey, UWMC Celeste Gilman, Commuter Services Bob Ennes, Health Sciences Academic Services & Facilities Diane Cañate, University Advancement at-large representatives Jean Garber, Dentistry note taker Andrea Neubert, Transportation Services

Guests: Transportation Services: Reed Keeney, George Donegan, Michelle Rhoads, Brent Curtis Call to Order Public Comment •

None

Approval of February Minutes •

Minutes were not distributed, will approve next month

Universal Student UPASS Advisory Board • • •

Advisory Board lead process of getting new U-PASS rates approved by ASUW senate and GPSS senate. Moving forward with new rate of $80/quarter starting Fall 2015 increasing to $84/quarter Fall 2016. Uses authority given directly to students by legislature, does not go to Regents, does not require recommendation from UTC

Faculty Staff U-PASS Subcommittee • • •

Robust discussion about options moving forward. Hoping for more information in the near future. Universal U-PASS, possible course of action going to each bargaining unit separately. In conversation with the Office of Planning and Management and hopefully to go into conversations about how we can close gaps in Faculty/Staff U-PASS budget institutionally.

South Campus Transportation Committee • •

Has not met the last month or two. Transportation Maintenance team is arranging for a “freshening” of some items in the S1 Garage. Very minimal impact. o Transportation Maintenance group completing hiring that will allow to go to a 7 day operation. Meaning more work occurring in parking facilities during off hours to clean/maintain efficiently.

Correction to Fleet Vehicle Parking Rate • • •

Error in table brought forward last time. Not calling for official recommendation. This is a calculated rate. Rather than a decline in rate for fleet vehicle parking on campus, will have a slight increase which is bundled into fleet rate.

Faculty/Staff/Opt-In UPASS

• • • •

•

• •

Current rate is $132/quarter – proposed rate is $150/quarter. o 13.6% increase over current rate. Program continuing to operate in deficit for the following year. Operating at a slight deficit, using program reserves o Allowing subcommittee additional time to do their work and TS to create sustainable model for program Celeste and team modeled financial impact at a wide variety of rates and the lowest deficit was at the $150 rate - where we hit the “sweet spot” between having the program cover its own costs and participation in the program. Want to Increase the amount charged to benefit load rate a small amount (10%) o Asked to defer until Office of Planning and Management finished program review for Transportation Services. All auxiliaries at university are going through review on planning and management. o Requires us to go forward with a deficit budget o Tom Rietkerk: A lot of companies in Seattle fund transportation 100% U-PASS Rate Stabilization Chart o We now get monthly updates for utilization and can refine projections on a monthly basis o Will sign transit contracts in August or September and we expect cost associated to be $9.28 million o Deficit is based on current state of our tax dispute with the city around their attempt to tax the TDM fee as though it were a parking fee.  Will be $0.83 million in the hole if we win dispute. Have $0.73 million in rate stabilization projected at the end of the year. Ending balance for FY16 would be $0.1 million.  If the tax dispute goes poorly – could have a one-time charge in prior period tax liability of $1.03 million at end of this fiscal year. In addition could have another $0.3 million in additional liability could accrue next year. Worst case scenario $1.64 million in the hole for the program for the coming year.  Having conversations with Planning and Management about prior period reconciliation separately from how we deal with ongoing program concerns. o Laura Harrington: we need to fix this program or we are going to price the community out of the U-PASS product o Laura H. question: We have been doing a process where we are doing pay as you go transit contract. What kind of conversations have there been around a flat per employee rate? Would that be a benefit to us? Can we move Metro in that direction if it would be beneficial?  Josh: would not be beneficial under current pricing structures. In negotiations, have tried to get best in cost per trip.  Laura: is there a cap on the number of trips we get charged? • Josh: this is a consideration, have yet to be successful and are continuing to pursue it. • Celeste: We have gone through a period where all the transit agencies have been under intense financial pressure and that has made it difficult to get some of those concessions. o John Schaufelberger: Sound transit integration April 15 has that been factored in?  Josh: Yes. Ridership and fare increase included in that. Role of UTC as advisory group, action item on this will be to recommend proposed Faculty/Staff U-PASS Rate Chuck Treser moves to recommend Faculty/Staff U-PASS Rate o John Schaufelberger seconds o No objections

Impromptu Car Pool Rate • • •

•

Has been discussed in many committees and advisory board Students appreciate committee tabling this last time around and for work Transportation Services has done to come up with alternative that is more responsive to student interests and overall goals of ridesharing program Previously proposed 2+ impromptu at $7.50. Reason behind increase was that cost of service was higher than what was being charged in particular that the disruptive effect of carpools had been felt on core campus this year. Needed to price in a way that was commensurate with cost of service and disruption. o Students asked to meet halfway, provide an option that was more accessible. Found that technologically we were able to do so by preserving also a 3+ carpool option at a lower rate. Now proposing $5 for 3+ carpool and $7.50 for 2 person carpool - campus interior lots on a space available basis at time carpool comes to gatehouse o John S.: What is the difference between 2 and 3 costs? o Josh K.: Because 2 person carpools are easier to form, more of them happened. Because more of them happened, more disruption occurred. o Laura H: Why is E1 lot carpool is disappearing?  Josh: E1 disappearing as a technology enabled option because new technology doesn’t support it. People are still free to share the cost of parking. Can still go to E1 - one person swipes in and then everyone gives them a dollar, or the next time someone else pays.  E1 mechanically issued rates

• •

o PPUP will be extending to other facilities, including E1. To be part of recommendation going forward, did most of the table last time, just acting on impromptu products in this case John Schaufelberger moves to recommend impromptu carpool rates o Chuck Treser seconds o No objections

Event Parking Rates • •

•

•

•

• •

• •

•

•

For football, all proceeds are retained within athletic department – so we defer to ICA in proposing those rates. They have proposed no change for coming year. Remainder of events that occur on the east campus are operated by Transportation Services and part of the overall Events program for University. Charge differentiated rates on east campus because sensitivity to other things on east campus like ticket rates for events and different operational profile. Other anomaly in overall rate schedule, based on a request a number of years ago, the rate in Central Plaza Garage was set to a flat rate every evening. o Because there are so many evenings when there are multiple events going on and the variability between events, people couldn’t predict what they were paying when they came to CPG in evenings. Have carried decision forward. Laura: ICA has concerns about some of the rates, but has there been enough time for a robust discussion? In the same way we gave students courtesy with the carpooling, would like to step back and carve out men’s basketball and anything else ICA would like to have further discussion about and take them off the table for any recommendations today. If we are short on time, would propose ICA and TS discuss and come back to committee by email for vote. o Josh: happy to entertain and support in later point in the conversation. There are imbedded policy issues in the discussion that UTC needs to do. Last meeting we tabled the non-football athletic event rates to allow for additional work between TS and ICA. There were 2 things that needed to happen: o Internal process at TS around working up a model of costs and revenues and figuring out where rates needed to go in coming year for program to be whole. o Advance meeting between ICA and transportation services. Both have occurred since last UTC meeting. TS has spun-off a dedicated Events unit designed to give better focus and isolate costs with events operation rather than being included in overall parking budget so we can understand where there are cross-subsidies between day-to-day and events rates. Biggest cost driver – wages. o Primary staffing is student employees.  Throughout recession we were not making adjustments to faculty/staff wages. During that period we put a freeze on student wages as well, frozen at $10/hr.  2 calendar years ago and at that point we raised to $11/hr.  Are planning to move base rate to $12/hr for coming quarter or beginning of fiscal year. o 20% increase in primary labor pool, built into revenue and cost assumptions. o Starting to understand cost of event program above and beyond operating costs.  Indirect costs – TS facility maintenance. Acknowledging fact that, if it weren’t for major events on campus, we would stop maintaining certain facilities. • We maintain excess parking on campus to support large events. Some of the cost of maintaining those facilities should be borne by the events program. • Done our best to allocate appropriate share of facilities cost to events program. Allocation methods – large portion allocated based on labor costs. Maintenance and debt based on total TS revenue from Parking belongs to Events. Diane C.: Why are these isolated from other events? o Rates identified are largely carried over to other east campus events. The data is richer in the ICA events realm and is more effective for building a model for what’s going on in the east campus. o The intention was for future years, as we gained an understanding around the many types of events that occur in central campus, and try to build out a model of what it costs to support those. That we would bring that back as an isolated event. Historically the central campus events rate has been connected to daily maximum parking rate of $15 that has not been adjusted in at least 4 years. o We can approve cost accounting in that area, we are not there right now. o Diane C.: Recommend for larger context – Advancement is on the brink of a comprehensive campaign and the number of events will increase. So that’s something you will want to think about. Not sure these rates reflect that. Josh: Diane has identified a good body of work for us to talk on. Suggests we spin-out a task force of the committee that would look at central campus events and try to understand how those are delivered, the cost assumptions that go into them along with the revenue side of things and bring findings back to UTC. There are enough variables that we can push and pull on that solving it in the rates process doesn’t seem to work. Central campus event – hosting event not-east-of-Montlake

•

• • •

• •

• •

•

•

Creating rates based on facility, where the event occurs. o Distinction – on east campus where there is a different circulation network and different level of parking available so the staffing pattern is different than events on core campus. This allows us to do a cost-based solution on the east campus that is difficult to do on central/west campus. Wouldn’t integrate east/west campus in terms of a rates structure because they are operationally different. Diane C.: for purpose of immediate conversation, talking about events on the East campus. Event rates and how that effects ICA. The idea of collaborating to get a great outcome - that at the end of the day creates the experience we want for the visitor on campus/person coming to athletic event. It is the expectation, generally, that the parking program pay its own bills. Similarly that the events program pay its own bills and that there not be a subsidizing of events from faculty/staff/student parking fees. That is the construct that was in the minds of staff as they worked on proposal. Rates as proposed, columns highlighted in yellow. Included in spreadsheet on back that forecasts using proposed rates. Rates are accurate in terms of direct expenses and modeled proportionally in terms of supplies, etc. What you see is that we are projected to be upside down $100,000 total on all athletic events next year. o The wildcard in that is team performance. Have had a rough year in terms of performance in basketball and that has affected attendance. Believe program will turn around and attendance will be up next year and in terms of forecasting we need to look at present behavior. o Sheet assumes current attendance levels and the new rates structure. That leaves us about 100,000 in the hole for parking program. o If we look at total of maintenance and debt costs there, $31,000. That’s something we haven’t had the wherewithal to calculate with rates before. o In some ways, proposing to buffer ICA events operations from fully shouldering the costs of parking. That is a bet on team performance in some ways and also a policy decision that we are recommending to step things up more slowly. o If this set of forecasts comes true it is a 100,000 cross subsidy between other parts of parking program to athletic events program. Parking revenues aren’t the only revenues. Events have TDM fee assessed just like every parking occurrence on campus. TDM fees are projected to total about $218,000. These revenues baked into Faculty/Staff/Student U-PASS fees. Tom Reitkerk: the two programs struggling are men’s and women’s basketball. Volleyball expenses are different than women’s basketball. What is the difference? o Everything is modeled. In case of women’s basketball there are tyees and different traffic patterns. Have to staff every lot on east side. The allocation of other costs, supplies, etc are all related to the direct costs of labor. o Tom: how to approach the events operationally? o Josh: numbers are modeled and based on allocation of costs. The total across all events are real numbers. Goes back to agreement with ICA. We understand there are attendance goals for ICA and parking is part of the cost of attendance. May want to see one event subsidize another event. In our conversation with ICA, Transportation Services expressed that within athletic event portfolio, happy to raise one and reduce another in whatever way met ICA’s goals so long as balance between revenue and costs was no worse than what we’re proposing. Similarly, where there are opportunities for costs that are experienced by Transportation Services to be experienced by the event host to help provide staffing to fund traffic direction we have to subcontract to police department, etc. Those sorts of cost reductions can also be factored into ultimate rate paid by attendee. So long as the net outcome is no worse than what we have proposed, we are happy to support anything like that. Finally, the rate that is approved by the Regents. Do not have to go back to Regents for new rate, as auxiliary of university can discount from approved rates but cannot exceed approved rates. Regents approve a ceiling and we can discount from there, allowing us opportunity through course of year to have give and take with partners in delivering events to hold parking system whole and keep Faculty/Staff/Student customers whole. Also be responsible with creative thinking as service provider to meet customer needs. Do we want to act today or do we want to defer and have TS come back after additional discussions (with ICA in particular) to talk about a different mix that is less likely to be tinkered with than the cap set by Regents? o Laura: preference to give this more thought and discussion. o Dave: Patty Riley agrees with Laura’s recommendation o Diane: agrees as well, need an opportunity to talk about solutions o John Schaufelberger: Concern is what impact it would have on basketball having the higher rate – Is there revenue that can subsidize keeping basketball at a lower rate? If too much is charged will people no longer want to attend? o Tom: athletic events part of institutional image, need to recognize it’s bigger than a parking program. Josh: We have proposed a budgeted $100,000 deficit in east campus events as it pertains to parking. So our conversations have the correct goal – is that something the committee is comfortable with? Do we need to budget to zero? Is it a different number all together? o Dan: talking about this from athletics perspective, we have a lot of things we are competing against, like TV. Trying to get fans here is a challenge, one thing is always the cost – whether it’s tickets, concessions, or parking. There needs to be an approach to this of the entire fan experience from start to finish and parking is a huge part of that. Want to

•

improve the product. Increasing rate too much can lose people. Don’t want to see people impacting other areas. As we move forward, good to consider all impacts and how people can change habits based on where price is. There needs to be some creativity for how we handle parking needs. Possibility of value based on distance. How we can serve our fans and be revenue neutral. o Laura: We don’t want funding gap, however think about the philosophy behind it, what are our values. Just passed a budget for U-PASS that puts us in the hole because we value participation in U-PASS program. Husky pride matters and is a huge part of the campus environment. Is comfortable with $100,000 deficit if it helps us position ourselves to continue to be the leading university with that fierce brand. o Tom: agrees with $100,000 deficit. o Chuck: Came to a sweet spot in U-PASS where increase in costs met where demand was. If athletics wants to make things cheaper for fans so they don’t lose them, certainly understandable. How about subsidizing to keep the transportation system going? o Diane: central events component, Athletics is an entry point for so many things on campus. OK with deficit. If events fee that hits advancement department is higher, happy to have that conversation. Anyone who has additional thoughts about conversation we just had – share with Josh. We have a lot of work to do and we need to do it quickly. Will be in active conversations with our partners and want to make sure in doing that the broader wisdom of UTC is considered.

Fleet Services Rate Presentation •

Will be circulating fleet presentation by email and asking for vote by email. If you have questions associated with that, email George directly and copy Andrea.

Other Notes •

Josh will be out most of April on parental leave.

Future Agenda Items • • •

Event Rates Impromptu Carpool Rate Send agenda requests to Andrea ([email protected])