May 6, 2004
Fee proposal changed in response to comments
Changes are being made to a proposal to increase University parking and transportation fees as a result of a public comment period that culminated with a hearing last week. Increases were proposed for fees in all categories — from single occupancy vehicle permits to U PASSes — with higher rates going into effect over three years beginning this summer. .
But comments from the public have led to dropping at least one idea — a proposal to have people with SOV, retiree and motorcycle parking permits pay an extra fee for a U PASS, according to Peter Dewey, assistant director of transportation services. People in those categories currently get a U PASS at no extra charge when they buy the permit.
Dewey said other changes may also be made before the proposed fee increases go to the Board of Regents this month.
For most employees, parking fees would increase about 12 percent per year under the proposal. The only major change proposed is to charge a fee for carpool parking. Currently, carpoolers pay for a U PASS but do not pay for parking.
About 40 people, 12 of whom chose to testify, attended last week’s hearing. According to a handout transportation services provided at that time, the increases are needed because a growing number of people are using public transportation and 2005 transit fares are expected to increase, resulting in a 50 percent increase in the University’s transit costs between 2003 and 2007.
Also, a capital program to develop parking for new academic buildings and the expansion of the West Campus Garage is expected to require $14.5 million in debt with a repayment cost of $1.3 million.
One speaker at the hearing challenged the statement about increased transit fees. Gail Stygall, an associate professor of English who was representing the Faculty Senate, said she had spoken with members of the King County Council, who told her they expected no fare increase beyond what was needed to accommodate increased ridership, expected to be about 3 percent. Stygall said it was unfair to ask faculty, staff and students to pay for a speculation.
Contacted after the hearing, Dewey said that assumptions are always used when setting parking and U PASS fees because the costs must be projected for several years into the future. When the proposal for fee increases was put together in January, he explained, it seemed prudent to assume a 2005 fare increase because none has occurred since 2001. King County staff have since denied this will happen in 2005.
Dewey said the true picture about fares wouldn’t be known until November, when agency budgets are approved. Nevertheless, he said, the University was now leaning toward delaying the assumed fare increase until 2006, which would mean the projected fee increases would be lower.
However, the question of a fare increase wasn’t the only objection the Faculty Senate had to the proposed increases. As Stygall put it, senators felt it was insensitive to propose fee increases at a time of rising tuition and minimal or no salary increases.
At its April meeting, the senate overwhelmingly passed a resolution against the proposed fee increases, which states that increases “should be held to the percentage of any general salary increase.”
Senators were also unhappy that UW transportation policy includes inadequate mitigation for hardship cases. People with medical conditions or disabilities that force them to drive must pay the full fee, Stygall said, noting that at least some peer institutions — she cited UCLA — do provide such mitigation.
Dewey countered that providing additional exceptions for the disabled creates an administrative burden and means that everyone else has to pay more, and he added that the disabled already get the best parking locations on campus but pay no more than unreserved parking permit holders. However, he said transportation services staff were in the process of looking at peer institution policies on this matter.
Both faculty and staff representatives criticized the process leading to the proposal. Stygall said that whereas Faculty Senate approval had been sought in the past, this year the senate had received only “information sessions.” Marilyn Gray, a graduate school staffer representing the Professional Staff Organization, said staff had not been consulted at all.
But Dewey said the process with regard to the faculty and staff was identical to the process used in 2000, when the last increase was enacted. The University Transportation Committee, which reviewed, revised and approved the fee proposal in December and January, is made up of three faculty, two students and eight staff.
Students expressed unhappiness too. Mae Diligencia, representing the ASUW Student Senate, passed out copies of a resolution the senate passed opposing the proposed fee increases. The resolution charged that the increases are unfair to students because the money would support three parking garages that would not be available to students.
However, according to Dewey, the money collected from students for U PASSes and parking does not even cover the cost of their transit use, so they are not subsidizing the parking garages.
Other speakers protested particular portions of the proposed increases. Two, for example, spoke against the proposed U PASS charge for motorcyclists, which has been dropped.
Randy LeVeque, a professor in applied math, brought up the plight of junior faculty coming to campus on nights and weekends or over the summer — when many are not being paid — to do extra work to achieve tenure. Why not give those people free parking at a time when parking lots are not full, he asked.
But Dewey said the revenue collected at off-peak times was not trivial and that money not collected then would have to come from somewhere else. Transportation services’ policy, he said, has been to spread the burden as widely as possible.
Donald Baxley, a Harborview staffer and representative of the union SEIU 925, was more interested in solutions. He said that shuttle buses to off-site parking had been effective at Harborview and that the University should consider this option rather than raising the U PASS rates.
The problem with that idea, according to Dewey, is that there isn’t any free parking in the area from which to shuttle people, and shuttles are expensive to run.
Dewey said that transportation services staff are in the process of revising their fee proposal based on revised forecasts and comments received from the public — at the hearing and elsewhere — and that he would be submitting the revised proposal to Cheryl Cameron, the associate vice provost who served as hearing examiner.
Cameron said at the hearing that she would be summarizing and analyzing the comments made at the hearing and turning them over to the Board of Regents. The regents will also have access to a tape and transcription of the hearing itself.
Cameron will submit her recommendations on the fee increases to the Board of Regents’ Capital Assets Committee, which meets on Thursday, May 20. The full board will consider the proposal at its meeting on Friday, May 21.
For a complete schedule of the proposed fee changes as they were originally formulated, go to http://www.washington.edu/admin/parking/2004fees.html. Dewey said transportation services staff expects to post their revised proposal next week.
