Senate Parking Committee

Report to the Academic Assembly

June 2003

The Senate Committee on Parking was established as a permanent committee in Fall 2002. This academic year we have reviewed the basis for the establishment of parking rates. On March 17, 2003 we made recommendations to Vice Chancellor Stan Nosek. Our seven recommendations are summarized below and summarize the issues that we have faced. Our overall goal was to keep parking rate increases to a minimum and to continue to operate using the underlying principle that users should only pay for costs directly related to parking. “For many employees, parking represents an obligatory expense, which they have to incur if they wish to come to work in a reasonable amount of time (UCSC Faculty Association, October 16, 2002).”

The Senate Committee on Parking reviewed the basis for the establishment of rates for parking. We strongly recommended that a number of items be considered when setting rates for the academic year 2002-2003 (see below). Our major underlying principle continues to be that Users should be reimbursed (in the form of administrative augmentations of the TAPS budget) for all parking spaces built, paid for and maintained by users and then removed from inventory by campus restructuring. If the space is functional, the level of reimbursement should be the cost of replacing the parking space and be independent of the date of construction of the space.

.

Our Committee requested that parking rates be kept at the 2002/3 level until the following issues are addressed to the satisfaction of faculty, staff and students. We believe that once these issues are resolved, there could actually be a decrease in parking fees. It is our understanding that as of July 2003, the rates for the A permit will probably increase by $24 per year instead of $48 per year.

Recommendation #1. The Committee recommended that TAPS budget be credited for the loss of parking spaces out of service from year 2000. Furthermore, credit for the future loss of spaces should be considered when estimating debt service.

Rationale: The administration’s current replacement parking policy, i.e. the policy for reimbursing the parking program for parking places taken out of service for capital construction and infrastructure changes is flawed. It is the position of The Senate Committee that existing parking spaces are displaced not to improve the parking program but rather to serve other campus interests. Therefore, the self-funded parking program should not pay for serving these interests. As part of any project, we need to ask what it will cost to return to the pre-existing number of parking places. The parking program should not be responsible for the cost of new parking places to replace those taken out of present inventory to accommodate physical expansion and restructuring of the campus.

Over the last five years 1,601 spaces have been lost due to campus restructuring. It is estimated that 1,223 of these spaces were accounted for by the agreement reached over the Mondavi Center Parking Garage (South Entry Parking Structure). Of the remaining 378 spaces:

Parking Facility Spaces Year Replacement Parking Facility Est Cost

Lot 14 65 2000 Lots 16 and 17 ?

Lot 28 97 2001 WEPS* ($20,000/space) 1,940,000

Lot 23 216 2002 Lot 35 ?

*WEPS: West Entry Parking Structure

TAPS provided us with an blended replacement cost of $8900. Based on this blended replacement cost, the total costs equal $3,364,200. This should be credited to the TAPS budget.

Over the next 5 years it is estimated that 878 spaces will be taken out of service due to campus infrastructure changes and new building; 525 of these spaces will be replaced by parking structures, either the WEPS or South Entry Parking Structure (SEPS} for a cost of about $20,000 per space. Using the figure of $8900 per space; replacement costs for the 525 spaces are $4,672,500. If any of the rate increase includes debt service for the WEPS, the 878 spaces should also be part of the reimbursement formula for determining fees for 2003-2004. The total number of spaces we want to be considered for reimbursement is 1,256.

We strongly disagree with the policy that TAPS users should absorb the costs for spaces (up to five per project) that are removed due to minor improvement projects to enhance campus safety, service functions and alternative circulation systems done for the benefit of the campus. The policy is unfair to the constituency of the campus who pays for parking and is disproportionately taxed as a result. Improvements done for the benefit of the campus at large should be borne by the campus at large.

Recommendation #2: When parking structures are constructed, TAPS should only be responsible for the basic costs. If there are architectural enhancements that are not related to the basic function, the costs should be picked up from funds other than from TAPS users. This will save TAPS users over $1 million in the construction of the West Parking Structure.

Rationale: We should not confuse parking and esthetics. The architectural enhancements for the WEPS (windows and observational walkways) are not related to the direct function of the structure. The whole campus benefits from these esthetic features of the structure. This cost should be borne by the whole campus.

Recommendation #3: The expansion of Dairy Road should not be charged to TAPS but should be paid for by campus funds.

Rationale: In the Long Range Access Plan, Dairy Road becomes a major access point. The whole campus benefits from this infrastructure charge and the costs should not be charged against the TAPS budget. The estimated cost for Dairy Road was about $1 million.

Recommendation #4 Visitor parking fees should be increased from $5 to $6.

Rationale: The cost for parking in similar structures in Sacramento is much higher

Recommendation #5: Citations fines should be increased from $22 to $30.

Rationale: The City of Davis will be increasing their citation fines to $30. By keeping parity with the City, we will not encourage people to park on the campus because our fines are lower.

Recommendation #6: UCD employees using handicapped stickers should be required to purchase an “C” sticker.

Rationale: Only two UC campuses do not charge for parking in handicapped spaces. People with handicapped stickers will still be able to park at meters without paying.

Recommendation #6:

There should be some nominal charge (10% of the price of the A sticker) for emeriti to park.

Rationale: Using the principle that users should pay for parking, we believe that a nominal fee, 10% of the A sticker would be appropriate.

As employees of the university, while we applaud the expansion and growth of UCD, it should not be done at the expense of those who park cars. Finally, we recommend that the Long Range Access Plan 2002-2005 be revisited with a goal to keep user fee increases to a minimum. This recommendation has been supported by TPAC. As an example of matters that require thoughtful reconsideration, the question of whether initiatives aimed at reducing the demand for parking should be funded from parking revenues merits further study and discussion. Our Committee does not dispute the fact that selected initiatives of this sort can slow the rate of growth of the campus’s parking inventory and thus the rate of growth of parking fees, but we believe that each individual instance must be evaluated on its own merits. The Committee opposes the blanket allocation of parking revenues to such programs, and believes that each envisioned allocation of this type should be refereed to appropriate advisory committees, including ours, for review and comment.

The Transportation and Parking Work Group would be well advised not to underestimate the passion that parking raises in faculty and staff.

Judith S. Stern, Chair

Committee members: John Oakley, Quirino Paris, Frank Samaniego, Dan Sperling; Ex Officio Members: Michael Buck, Cindy Schulze