University Transportation Committee Minutes April 20, 2015 – 11:30 a.m. – Gerberding 142 Present: student representatives Hailey Badger, ASUW Katie McNett, ASUW Aaron Vetter, GPSS faculty representatives Chuck Treser Bruce Balick staff representatives April Millar, WSNA Matt Weatherford, PSO

operational stakeholders John Vinson, UWPD Dan Erickson, ICA John Shaheen, Business Mobility Programs Josh Kavanagh, Transportation Services Tom Rietkerk, SLU Jeremy Eknoian, Real Estate Office Mark Stanley, Student Life & HFS Patricia Riley, UWMC Celeste Gilman, Commuter Services Bob Ennes, Health Sciences Academic Services & Facilities at-large representatives Jean Garber, Dentistry note taker Andrea Neubert, Transportation Services

Guests: Ann Gigli, Brent Curtis, George Donegan, Chris Jaross Call to Order Public Comment Celeste Gilman: May is Bike Month! Please participate Approval of February Minutes • • •

Moved by Matt Seconded by Bruce Passes, no objection or abstention

Student U-Pass Advisory Board • • • • •

Elected a new Vice Chair Making a video to advertise U-PASS to students Discussing distance learning students - if they should have to pay for U-PASS, what it would look if they didn’t Annual Report this year UAW negotiations active right now, Student U-PASS in that discussion

Faculty Staff U-PASS • •

Looked at financials last time, nothing new to report Material development - have been successful in reaching understanding with central admin in terms of increasing central support.

South Campus • • •

Meeting later this month Excited about improvements to S1 Garage Discussion of endorsement of portion of E12 for construction parking

Fleet Rates •

Passed by E-Vote

•

• • • •

Question about percentage increase on large trucks o Reorganized group 1, pulled out 4 large trucks from 69 total. 19 cent per mile change and daily rental rate. o For heavily used vehicles there is a marked increase in costs but proportional to the amount of miles being driven National Association of Fleet Administrators – voted #44 in the top 100 fleets. Highest ranked university on the list. By end of the month, will have bike guards on all large box trucks Installing electrical infrastructure across campus E85 will be available after spring quarter, modernized fuel pumps

Event Rates • •

•

•

Discussed East Campus rates in particular, event rates generally. Treating East Campus as individual cost/revenue center which allows for generally lower rates on East Campus rather than Central Campus. TS brought forward a proposal to ICA for what an events rates package could look like for next year. Included increase driven by more complete cost accounting (now that Events is its own unit, can isolate costs) and student wages (during economic downturn wages were frozen, including student wages at $10. Last spring made an adjustment to $11, this spring adjusting to $12. Given current signals from administration around minimum wage, expect by 2018 wages will rise to $15/hr). Brent and team working on efficiencies to help control costs. Event rate has not been increased in 4 years. In conversations with ICA, empathy for cost structure. At last meeting, no agreement with TS and ICA, specifically regarding men’s basketball. There is a concern in ICA that an increase to the men’s basketball rate in E1 would be detrimental to attendance. Deferred item because there had not been a consensus. Have had conversations in the meantime. Two proposals from TS to ICA and one from ICA to TS. o Proposal from ICA to TS focused on introduction of carpool rate. Included a cap at $12 for men’s basketball in E1. o Proposals from TS to ICA – one acknowledged ICA interest in carpool rate and suggested extended across range of athletic events and that, to balance rates across various event types to meet attendance, hold basketball rate and increase others. $12 parking rate for non-carpool vehicles for all east campus events and $10 rate for 3+ carpools. ICA did not favor this. Other proposal – no worse than current $100,000 subsidy could be achieved with ICA underwriting events where they want to see a less expensive rate than what would be required to reach rate. o Have not been able to come to terms. What is shown in the rates package is the original proposal from TS and includes $100,000 cross subsidy. Bruce – when you do cost accounting for parking lots supporting special events. What fraction is fixed overhead costs and what is on a per event basis? o Direct expenses totals are direct day-of-game expenses - roughly 40% of the total. Bruce – what makes sense is arrangement for football game parking where TS is reimbursed for fixed costs and ICA runs the parking program and controls revenue stream. Why don’t we do that for sports in general instead of just football? o Backstory: TS has historically run all parking and all transportation on campus. When stadium was expanded a new transportation management plan was required. This drove game day transportation costs in a direction that accelerated them beyond the pace of the revenue. Historically, all event parking on campus ran at a profit (in aggregate) and that net profit was part of institutional contribution to support U-PASS, etc. Over time, the game day transportation costs for football started to rise dramatically, but there was resistance to raise game day parking. We discovered that football was actually operating at a deficit and that general campus parking was starting to subsidize football. At that point TS said to ICA – we are willing to be your contractor for the day but you will own the associated costs and you can keep the residual revenue after TS has been compensated. That has been effective though incomplete in that only day-of labor costs (with a few exceptions for planning) have been charged. Costs of facilities maintenance aren’t factored in historically. Other things that a true cost accounting that would bring to bear that are not currently being paid for by ICA. For the remainder of the parking program, because there are not the costs associated with park and ride lots that operate for football. We haven’t, until recently, been able to document that things have been happening on an upside down basis. This is the first year we have had this level of accounting and this is the first adjustment in a while. We don’t want to shock the system and don’t want to shock the system later with minimum wage increases. o Dan – when we talk about football revenue. It historically loses money each year for the football games. Providing bus services has created big hits. If we keep having weekday games, will lose money. Football does lose money for parking depending on the year (depending on number of weekday games, hosting Apple Cup, etc). o Dan – the loss of revenue, there are costs that are rising. Ultimately at some point they do become fixed costs. At some point you only have so many people staffing the E1 lot. Men’s basketball attendance is dropping. You can buy a season ticket for $240 in upper concourse of arena. Parking will be the exact same rate. Why is the value of the game

o

o

o

the same as the parking. $15 for 2-3 hours ($15 the central campus rate). Costs for tickets tend to be less than the cost to park. OK with increases to Men’s Basketball, just not to $15. $12 normal or $10 for 3+ carpool. If E1 rate is too high, will push people out to find free parking elsewhere or they just won’t come. Bruce – why should risks for attendance be shared with TS? The money that might subsidize you could be going elsewhere that would benefit everyone, not just people who attend games. Why should subsidy continue in the long term?  Dan – Understanding of TDM fee, is that it’s going toward U-PASS. There may be down years and there will be up years as well. It’s the ICA world with the good and bad years, when you are latching on to athletic event parking.  Bruce – raised question because charging athletic fixed rates, revenue fluctuations become their problem rather than TS. • Josh – TS extended offer earlier this year and it wasn’t accepted. Patty Riley – the business need to charge a rate that may be different than campus rate. Our competitors are not on campus. $15 is not what we want our patients to see. We end up subsidizing that. Thought about going to Board of Regents with a different rate. All we want to do is have a rate that is competitive that makes sense to the patient. Understands, conceptually, the different rates for different businesses. Parking rates are a sensitive issue. Is running a business just like ICA is. Josh – various events with ticket prices – is each sport self-supporting. ICA helps to suppress ticket prices to make sure there are fans in the stands?  Dan – yes, subsidy from football and ideally men’s basketball  Josh – so there is a past practice in ICA to manage cost of attendance by underwriting the attendance for a fan coming in for a less attended sport.  Dan- not reflected are the other outside events brought in. For example – Pow-Wow and Beat the Bridge. A lot of revenue generated from those events. Are on the verge of potentially having a large event here this summer. Look across athletics and across the board. Have these great facilities that sit empty a lot of the time and aren’t being utilized. Opportunities to have larger events are potentially there. There are a lot of other events that are not reflected. Supports the increase but we are in a down year in men’s basketball and to bump it so much will drive people away. When we have really good attendance, let’s see where we are then and re-evaluate. Hopefully technologies can help efficiencies. Talking about one parking lot for one sport – there is a lot more that goes in here that isn’t being seen. Wants to bump just a little less than what is being proposed. Want a chance to see what a healthy basketball team looks like and revenue at that point.  Bob Ennes – forecasts based on last year- troubled by using a bad season to do projections. • Brent – part of that is based on the notion that attendance next year wouldn’t be higher than this year. • Dan – could be low beginning of year, could get better.  Bob – is there a way, given the unknowns, is there a way to share the risk and the reward? Could there be profit sharing or sharing of losses? • Josh – that has not been explored in negotiations so far, could be in future years. Does think that scenario putting forward did share some risk, specifically with the scenario that $10 carpool, $12 non-carpool E1, men’s basketball – round numbers additional $40,000 subsidy. If that were underwritten by ICA and the risk associated with over performance would be borne by TS. Less complete, but is a risk sharing scenario. TS remains open, $40,000 from ICA and problem is solved.  Chuck – bottom line – ICA is looking at losing money on parking. TS has to pay for the cost of doing business. If ICA does not pay the full amount, that has to come from someplace. That comes from faculty, staff, and students. Why should they be subsidizing athletics that we have 2,000 to 10,000 people attending? Yes ICA may be losing money on men’s basketball parking, overall making money on the sports program. Why not kick in the $40,000 to keep rates low? If concerned about bump of $5 then subsidize the difference so it’s not coming out of student, staff, and faculty pockets.  Bruce – For putting it back onto ICA to manage like they do for football.  Dan – these are people who aren’t required to be here, it’s entertainment. If we price them out they won’t come here. By increasing parking rate, people aren’t going to come, could see a greater loss of revenue. We need to find the right number to get people to park in our lots and get the right revenue. If we have a successful season next year we aren’t losing money or making money. Brent’s staff stays the same regardless of attendance.  Patty – where did the big event revenue go for the Jehovah’s Witness event? • Josh – transportation for Jehovah’s event ended up at a loss

Chuck – faculty, staff, and students do not have a choice - we need to get to UW. People coming for athletics, it’s disposable income.  Hailey – what are we making a recommendation on? The rate, and TS and ICA can work out any subsidization?  Josh – As long as you do not go above rate that is approved by regents, are within the law. If we approve higher rate in meeting today, ICA still has opportunity to come to understanding with TS to underwrite the $40,000 amount to bring it down to $12.  Matt Weatherford - $119,000 direct expenses. Is there any way for TS to offer staffing to hit $10 level and ICA pays any extra. • Josh – have offered cost transfers to ICA in the past. Nothing has stuck  Dan – Day of Game expenses have changed, minimum wage change has hit them as well. Not sure if this is being done with the parking. Staffing profiles for all sports different.  Michelle – what’s different about men’s basketball profile - have to hire the police to do traffic control after the games, which doesn’t happen with other events. Have partnered with athletics to do things like relocate TYEE parking to E12. Been able to reduce staffing. With new technology into E1 and E18 and won’t need as much staffing on the ground during any of these events when the new technology is available this summer. Already passing savings along. Reduced overtime by about $20,000 this year also factored in.  Patty – have we explored free E1? • Josh – just the proportional cost of maintaining the facility. The police would still be needed. • Dan – ICA is helping with police costs, etc.  John Vinson – what’s the downside of making this free? Why isn’t it on the table, the idea of pushing it off to ICA to manage? If it’s a win-win for everybody, that’s one less thing that TS has to worry about. • Josh – ICA management is on the table going forward. It was proposed and rejected higher up earlier in the year. It is not on the table for the process we are in now. The process that involved the potential of handing events to ICA was made in the context of facilitated conversation between TS and ICA via the president’s office.  John V. – were the rates a collaborative process? • Josh – we developed the rates and brought it to ICA for feedback. As discussions happened, no viable alternative has come forward.  John V. – Are you going to the Regents with or without support? • Josh – Would need approval to bring forward a rate without the committee’s endorsement. Would take it forward if necessary and would note that accordingly.  John V – ICA and TS need to figure it out. Could you work the rates upward over the next few years? • Josh – we have not, uncomfortable asking for greater subsidy for student, faculty, staff, patients. Free not an option per Regents policy.  Tom –Basketball season doesn’t kick in until November. You have time to look at structure of Men’s Basketball. Comfortable passing other rates and let TS and ICA discuss men’s basketball further.  Tom – moves to go forward on other rates, leaving out men’s basketball  Patty - seconded  Matt – do we need to have a greater conversation to create a policy for how we handle large events? (example: Jehovah’s Witness convention). • Josh – with potential for other large events, brings in a population on campus who isn’t used to being on campus. Unfamiliarity can drive labor costs. Talking about atypical events and what the business model looks like would be a good idea.  Patty – think we should introduce this free idea. The reason we can’t do it right now there are rates established for certain times of day. There are times overhead costs outweighs benefit of charging,  John V – predicts that if all units sit down about how to manage events on campus, will be able to better leverage resources better. Would encourage us all to think about it. We are all using each other to run our businesses. Sit at the table and be more strategic about resources. Worthwhile having a bigger conversations and look at ways to reduce costs and have conversations in advance and long-term. • Chuck – agrees, but thinking about making parking free depends on size of event. At some point officers will need to be in place.  Voting on rates excluding men’s basketball E1: none opposed of abstained Hailey – just wanted to make sure we haven’t assumed how we feel as a group. In support of raising fee to $15 and thinks ICA can subsidize that. It seems like ICA should subsidize the cost and not TS. 

o

o

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

o

John V – not certain we should assume that ICA runs a profit and that dictates they should subsidize. We should do what’s right for the university and decide what’s best. Sometimes we get into notion that ICA has all this money and we don’t know if that’s true. Need to look at what’s the best model for the university and if there is a way for the two units to collaborate and look at every option possible. Bob Ennes – even if ICA is making this great profit, the basketball program is important to University and alumni, etc. If we are creating a disincentive for people to come to games. Dan – ICA can act as University’s front porch. Can lead to donations from alumni to anywhere. Josh – appreciates concept of asking question, what’s the best interest of the institution and how do we decide how to fund. Heard Hailey say she was in favor of $15 rate then decide on how we can get that to work. Matt – if we approve $15/hr rate with Regents, it can still be reduced at any point. Raising the rates includes another trip to the Regents. Jeremy – There are other options out there, not comfortable endorsing $15. There are other options. Josh – It works within the policy framework. Jeremy – when does the decision have to be made? Josh – submit to Regents this week. Anything off cycle is additional trip to regents. John V. – everything based on budget projections, $12 an hour, if there is a deficit then work with ICA to fund it. Josh – that would be a reasonable motion put forward. Has implicit in it, a policy decision that is not for committee to make. But as a recommendation to administration. Hailey – issue, whether or not we are breaking even on event and also getting people to attend. Brent – clarification, proposal is $12 with a $10 carpool with 3+ Chuck – we may have gone as far as we can here and suggests TS and ICA come up with an agreement and send it out by email. There is only that one issue, which is a fairly small number with huge implications. Josh – would like to test with committee, option to approve the $12 rate with the expectation from committee that if there is an operating loss that that be borne at ICA (in excess of $100,000). Tom – Approve the $12 and the difference to be resolved between the groups. Josh – this would be a recommendation Aaron – would $12 mean we can’t move to $15 Josh – would have to propose it to the Regents at another time. John V. – if we work together we should be able to lower operating costs. Josh – there are many operating inefficiencies identified and going to be delivered on. Dan – go to $12/10, see how efficiencies play out, see how team does, see how revenue is next year. Can revisit this next year. This is 16 days next year. Talking about one season and can revisit. Tom Rietkerk moves to endorse the E1 men’s basketball rate at $10 for a 3+ occupant carpool and $12 for 1-2 occupants and that it is the expectation of the committee that at some point in the fiscal year ICA and TS will sit down and reconcile and that Transportation be held harmless for losses from low attendance.  Dan Seconds  None opposed, no abstentions Josh – gives us a path forward at staff level and communicates clear expectation from committee on where costs are to be borne.

E1/E18 •

Operational changes you will start seeing in June. Due to customer demand and usage of E18 (value permit) the demand has gone up, needing to expand size of E18. Some new equipment being installed this summer. Need to do some reconfiguration. Will start seeing changes. Will come back next month with comprehensive information.

Future Agenda Items •

Send agenda requests to Andrea ([email protected])