FINAL REPORT
October 11, 2000

ACADEMIC SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING

Charge to Committee (June 5, 1999)

 "The Special Committee, consisting of a chair and four other members appointed by the Academic Senate Committee on Committees, will consist of one member each of the Standing Committees on Elections, Rules and Jurisdiction and Faculty Welfare and shall exist for a term that will end at the conclusion of the first meeting of the Representative Assembly (RA) for the fall term of 2000 unless continued or earlier terminated by action of the RA."

"The Committee is charged with studying the administration, funding and oversight of transportation, parking and related services on the Davis campus, and recommending improvements of the same. The Committee shall report its findings to the RA, and shall recommend whether or not a standing committee or joint standing committee or other mechanism should be established in order to serve and represent the interests of faculty, staff and students with respect to transportation and parking issues."

Committee Members

William Davis, Department of Anthropology
Ben McCoy, Department of Chemical Engineering & Material Sciences
Francisco Samaniego, Division of Statistics
Judith S. Stern, Department of Nutrition
Carroll Cross, Chair, Departments of Internal Medicine & Physiology: Med Sch
John Lee, ASUCD, Ad hoc
Cindy Schulze, UCD Staff Assembly, Ad hoc
Molly Hillard, GSA, Ad hoc

Norma Rice, Academic Senate Office Staff Support

Acknowledgements

The Committee is especially grateful to Transportation and Parking Services (TAPS) Director Brodie Hamilton and to Vice Chancellor-Administration, Janet Hamilton for their candid and insightful presentations to the Committee and for their reviews of several draft versions of the report.

INTRODUCTION

On May 21, 1990, the Universitywide Committee on Faculty Welfare issued a document entitled "Operating Principles Applicable to Parking Policy: The Academic Senate Position." Among its declarations were the following: "Campus administrations should recognize that campus parking for faculty members is, for many, virtually a condition of employment. Convenient parking contributes immediately to faculty efficiency, to the faculty’s ability to participate broadly in university affairs, and to each campus’ sense of community . . . Keeping parking fees as low as possible, so as to preserve faculty good will, is in the best interests of the University." These statements, and indeed the document that contained them, were endorsed by the Systemwide Academic Council and presented to the President of the University.

In 1990, the cost of parking on the UCD campus was, by any reasonable standard, quite modest. The cost of an "A" sticker that spring was $15 per month. At that time, there existed an administrative advisory committee, having faculty, staff and student representation, which met regularly and rendered advice to the administration on parking and related matters on an ongoing basis. Subsequent cannibalization of a parking lot on the site of the planned construction of the new Social Science/Humanities building, and the parallel decision to build a nearby, multi-level parking structure, led to a substantial amount of incurred debt and to the beginning of a steep increase in parking fees.

The Transportation Advisory Committee was discontinued in the early nineties. There was thus no formal advisory process in place as the campus began, in the mid-nineties, its long-range planning in the area of transportation and parking. This planning process culminated in the adoption by the campus administration of the "Long Range Access Plan" (LRAP), which was issued as an official planning and working document in January 1997. The LRAP came to the attention of the Academic Senate’s Committee on Faculty Welfare (CFW) in the winter of 1998 in the course of that committee’s discussions with Transportation and Parking Services (TAPS) administrators regarding parking issues that arose in the CFW’s survey project earlier that year. The CFW was stunned to learn that two new parking structures had been approved by campus administration, and that the LRAP contained several parking fee scenarios, the most expensive (Winter Scenario) of which would raise the annual costs of "A" stickers by 293% (from $324 to $948) and raise the annual cost of "C" stickers by 332% (from $228 to $756) over the ten-year period, 1995-2004 (see Table 1 below). The campus administration actually adopted the Fall Scenario which included projections for annual "A" permit rates moving from $324 in 1995 to $528 in 2000 (52% increase) and $780 in 2004 (141% increase). Annual "C" permits move from $228 in 1995 to $420 in 2000 (74% increase) and $624 in 2004 (173% increase).

At the behest of the CFW, the Representative Assembly of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate approved, in the spring of 1999, the formation of a Special Committee on Transportation and Parking. The charge of that Committee was, in simple terms, to investigate matters related to the availability and cost of campus parking and to make recommendations to the Senate regarding appropriate strategies aimed at securing convenient and affordable campus parking for all faculty, staff and students who have need for it.

The Special Committee on Transportation and Parking was commissioned to present its final report to the Academic Senate in the fall of 2000. This final Report provides details on the investigations and findings of our 15 meetings and puts forth a collection of principles and recommendations intended for immediate consideration by the Academic Senate and the campus administration. As a courtesy the Committee provided a copy of this Report to Administration and to the Academic Senate leadership on August 4, 2000. No substantive comments were received prior to issuance of this Final Report of October 11, 2000. In order to obtain more comprehensive information and input on parking and related matters, we invited ad hoc members representing the UCD Staff Assembly, the UCD Academic Federation, the ASUCD, and the Graduate Student Association. It is clear to the Special Committee that the entire matter has some urgency. During the course of our deliberations, costs and revenues associated with Parking Services were scrutinized. In the paragraphs that follow, we summarize our investigative findings and the principles and recommendations which we are now putting forward for consideration by the Academic Senate. We also append a listing of the database upon which this report was based.

INVESTIGATIVE FINDINGS

1. The Campus Advisory Committee on Transportation and Parking issues was disbanded in the early 1990s during the severe budget reduction years and well before the development of the Long-Range Access Plan (LRAP) issued in January 1997. The LRAP showed two possible scenarios (Fall and Winter), the most expensive of which proposed approximately to triple UCD parking fees over the next 5-10 years to "cover the cost" of building new replacement parking facilities on the UCD campus. The administration adopted the least expensive scenario which increased "A" and "C" permits 52% and 74% over the period 1995-2000, respectively.
2. Campus parking structure sites are established through the campus long-range development planning process. The TAPS LRAP follows the land use plan outlined in the 1994 Campus Long-Range Development Plan (LRDP).
3. The January 1997 LRAP developed by TAPS was accepted by the administration in June of 1997 without having had the benefit of a critical review by an appropriate, broad-based advisory committee or a review by the Academic Senate. The administration has used the LRAP as a guide. For example, although the LRAP shows the campus meeting its parking needs through parking structures only, a number of surface lots have been constructed as opportunities have arisen, explaining in part why current 2000 parking permit rates are a bit lower than projected in the Fall Scenario.
4. The LRAP set in motion a plan to build at least two new parking structures on the campus, at an approximate cost of $12K per parking space; one of these structures will be adjacent to, and in direct support of, the planned Center for the Performing Arts. No provisions were made to raise monies for replacing parking spaces taken out of use by new constructions related to this project.
5. The first of these new parking structures (Parking Structure #2), and its associated surface parking, will support general campus parking demand (during the day and evening hours), as well as the Center for the Arts (during the evening hours, when general campus demand is minimal in this area).
6. Table 1 below shows projections for the most expensive approach (the "Winter Scenario") identified in the LRAP for dealing with the core area campus parking demand through the year 2004-05 (meeting demand with structure spaces only). The rate of scheduled fee increases envisioned in this scenario has not been implemented. The actual implemented rates for 1999-2000 were $38/month for an "A" permit and $30/month for a "C" permit.

TABLE 1
PARKING SERVICES LONG TERM FACILITY CONSTRUCTION PLAN
Cost
(Winter "most expensive" Scenario)

	New Parking
	Spaces	Cost for Structure
Year	Required	Space Only	Annual A-Permit Rate	Annual C-Permit Rate
1995-1996	416	$ 4,992,000	$324	$228
			($27/month)	($19/month)
1999-2000	1,943	$18,324,000	$636	$504
			($53/month)	($42/month)
	(1,527*)		($26/month increase)	($23/monthincrease)
2004-2005		$22,812,000**	$948	$756
	3,844		($79/month)	($63/month)
	(1,901*)		($26/month increase)	($21/month increase)
Totals:	3,844	$46,128,000	$52/month increase***	$44/month increase***

* Reflects the number of parking spaces required to be constructed to meet the core
campus utilization benchmark.

** This reflects projected increases beyond 2000-01 for a proposed Parking Structure #3,
near the Rec Hall. Such a project and any associated rate increases have yet to be
approved, although Chancellor Vanderhoef does mention this in the context of "yet to be
constructed" in his 25 June 2000 Davis Enterprise column concerning parking garages.

*** Over $21 million of the approximate $46 million proposed to be spent to construct the
required number of structure spaces is for replacement parking.

 

7. Beginning in 1998-99, monthly parking payroll deductions for employees were changed to a pre-tax dollar basis. This resulted in a 15 percent to 28 percent reduction in parking rates to the rate payer, depending on his/her marginal tax bracket, while leaving the TAPS income unchanged. Thus, the effective cost of a monthly "A" permit through payroll deduction in 2000-01 will be $30 to $35 per month, depending on the employee’s marginal bracket. The net effect of the rate increases and tax changes has been to reduce ratepayers’ annual disposable income by a maximum of $96. A similar analysis of "C" permit costs indicates that the net effect of the rate increases and tax changes is a maximum disposable income loss of $108 annually.
8. Over the last decade approximately 2700 UC Davis parking spaces have been bulldozed, including 410 for the Social Sciences & Humanities building and 1230 for the Center for Performing Arts. A major financial issue being dealt with by all UC TAPS is the obtaining of funds for replacing parking ground spaces with new ground spaces (est. $3.5K per vehicle) or with parking structure spaces (est. $12K per vehicle).
9. Only in one instance (the 40 spaces displaced in the construction of the Buehler Alumni and Visitors Center) was Parking Services reimbursed for the displaced parking. The precedent set with the Buehler Center is an important one. This puts UC Davis in the company of three other UC campuses which follow the general policy of reimbursing the campus for parking places displaced by construction funded by private donations. Currently, UCSB, UCI and UCSC have such policies. Twelve hundred and thirty parking places were displaced in the process of constructing the privately funded Center for Performing Arts and to accommodate the New Loop Road, Entry Park and new parking facilities serving the Center for Performing Arts.
10. New buildings often take existing parking places out of circulation. These parking removals must then be rebuilt at the expense of the University parking community. We estimate the cost to the campus community to replace the aforementioned 1230 spaces to be (1230 x $12,000 per space) or $14,640.00. The TAPS budget not only pays for the original parking space but also for the replacement parking space. On the UCD campus this has been done both for buildings financed by state monies as well as for buildings financed by private funds, with the only known exception being the Buehler Alumni & Visitors Center building.
11. Parking program expenses for 1997-98 totaled $4,081,583. Beginning in the 1997-98 academic year, two new reserve accounts were established in support of transportation-related projects. The Road and Pathways Funds Reserve was established with $300,000 in that year’s parking revenues, and the Parking Facilities Projects Reserve was established with a $400,000 allocation from parking revenues. All but $300,000 (the contribution to the Road and Pathway Fund) of this amount was expended or encumbered for parking program related expenses (including the $400,000 identified as parking reserves, which went to planning and design costs for Parking Structure #2 and associated surface parking). Thus 92.6 percent of the parking program expenses were spent on parking related activities. However, only 81 percent went for expenses associated with existing parking facilities.
12. The cost of parking enforcement-related matters are given to Parking Services, yet the revenues generated from enforcement are assigned to encourage "alternative transportation" (see Footnote 1, page 7).
13. UCD campus TAPS budget has increased from $3.5 million in 1993-94 to $4.2 million in 1997-98, major items including staff salaries, debt service, supplies/expenses, direct cost agreements, parking facilities projects reserve, road and pathway fund reserve, benefits and debt service reserve.
14. Approximately 50 percent of UCD faculty and 75% of UCD staff reside outside the city of Davis and most of these employees require campus parking as public transportation from outside Davis to UCD exists only to a very limited degree. The percentages of faculty/staff living outside Davis are expected to rise in future years due to housing limitations in Davis and campus growth. The lack of a highly developed and comprehensive inter-city transit service clearly exacerbates the transportation and parking difficulties of UCD employees.
15. UCDMC parking policies and procedures are separately administered from UCD main campus TAPS. The policy and parking fee structure at UCDMC should be the subject of a future study.
16. Interest earned from the investment of parking revenues in the UC Short Term Investment Pool (STIP) is returned annually to the TAPS budget, at least since 1994. Practices prior to 1994 have not been scrutinized by the committee.
17. UCLA Administration has recently instituted a "land use rental fee" strategy to increase cost basis generated parking revenues on the land –locked UCLA campus. The UCLA campus community is actively seeking a reversal of this policy.
18. UCB and UCLA appear to provide partial subsidies for replacement-parking facilities.
19. Parking costs for faculty, staff and students at California State University, Sacramento, including parking structure costs in central campus, is less than 50 percent of UCDMC/UCD costs and many public community colleges (including Sacramento City College) provide free parking for faculty and staff. Clearly, the other segments of the State of California Higher Education System are operating under a different set of guidelines, as regards to parking, than is the University of California.

SOME BASIC PRINCIPLES ENDORSED BY THE COMMITTEE

1. The existence of convenient and affordable parking for faculty and staff is an important aspect of a hospitable campus environment and should be a major goal of the campus administration.

A university has a unique place in society. It is a center dedicated to teaching and learning, to thinking about and discussing new and old ideas, to exploration, to discovery and to the advancement of society’s highest and most important goals. Policies and actions that serve to facilitate and support scholarly work, that encourage interactions between faculty and students, that make it comfortable and even inviting for faculty to spend time on campus, and that make it easy for both faculty and staff to be generous with their time and talents, are not only wise and far-sighted but are essential for ensuring that the university flourishes. Faculty and staff are the heart of the university. If parking is regarded as a privilege that is extended only at considerable expense, faculty and staff resentment, demoralization, and resistance are certain to increase, to the detriment of the campus environment.

2. All parking revenues, whether from parking fees, from parking-related fines or from interest earned on parking revenues of any kind, should be used exclusively for the operation and maintenance of campus parking facilities.

The administration insists that, because of past understandings negotiated with state government, campus parking must be "self supporting." The Committee believes that it is important for the campus administration to give an appropriately narrow interpretation of what "parking" really means. There are great many transportation-related activities that are presently supported by parking revenues. On some UC campuses, some of these revenues have, in the past, been used to support projects that are totally unrelated to parking. We wish to assert in the strongest possible terms that it is improper for parking-related income to be spent on the construction and maintenance of roadways, on methods and modes of alternative transportation, or on general administrative costs for activities not directly related to campus parking.

3. In the spirit of joint governance, the administration should formally seek the advice and counsel of appropriate faculty and staff organizations before making decisions on policies and practices such as parking fees that strongly affect the quality of life on campus.

Parking issues, including availability, convenience and cost are certainly among those on which there should be ongoing discussion. This formal consultation might well be augmented by informal meetings between TAPS staff and representatives of faculty, staff and student organizations, as has been the TAPS practice in the past. The Committee believes that the current plan regarding the availability and cost of parking at UC Davis is seriously flawed and it notes that this plan was developed without formal consultation with the Academic Senate or with organizations representing UCD staff or students. We consider that state of affairs to be deplorable and suggest that formal and permanent mechanisms be established for consultation on such matters in the future.

4. Existing parking lots should generally be protected and should be removed from service only when improvements or rehabilitation is clearly necessary.

Parking lots, once constructed and paid for, should be credited to the users who paid for them and should not be removed from service without replacement in kind.

5. When parking spaces are removed from service as a byproduct of the construction of a new building, replacement of the affected spaces should be regarded as a construction cost.

The siting of new parking facilities is a delicate matter. The Committee believes that if parking structures are to be built their financing should include sufficient subsidies so that the net cost to users is equivalent to those that would have accrued from asphalt parking in their stead.

6. The cost of faculty and staff parking at UC Davis should be compared to, and indexed by, the cost of such parking at similar institutions in the region.

Comparisons with parking costs at public colleges in our area, that is, with California State University, Sacramento and with Community Colleges within a 40-mile radius of the Davis campus, seem to us to be the most relevant in establishing parking fees at an institution such as ours.

7. When parking fees are increased, the largest percent increase should be for the highest priced spaces. Conversely, the lowest percent increase should be for the lowest priced spaces.

The Committee wishes to assert that considerations of fairness dictate that the administration should maintain a pricing structure for parking fees that recognizes various constitutencies’ differential ability to pay. It is important to balance cost with convenience and to maintain a highly affordable parking option for UC Davis employees at the lower end of the salary scale. Thus, specially priced options like remote parking, with suitably convenient shuttle service, should be part of the overall parking plan. It would also be appropriate to charge substantially higher fees, including proportionately higher rates of increased fees, for employees who wish the added convenience of parking places reserved for them personally or reserved for them by virtue of an administrative office they hold. 

8. Other public institutions of higher education in California subsidize faculty and staff parking. The University of California should carefully explore this option.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. A moratorium should be declared on parking fee increases through June 2002, in order to allow faculty, staff, and students the opportunity to review carefully and discuss policies and plans of the Administration regarding parking and transportation on the UCD campus.
   
2. Beginning in academic year 2000-2001, parking revenues at UCD, including the interest earned on such revenues, should be used exclusively in support of the construction, operation and maintenance of campus parking. Non-parking related structures, activities and programs (including road construction and maintenance) should be funded by other means.
3. The campus should adopt as a goal that all budgets for capital construction should include a) replacement costs for any parking facilities or spaces removed by construction and b) building costs of parking spaces that are temporarily constructed because of construction projects. At a minimum, the campus will strictly adhere to the policy of requiring funding, through the project itself, of the replacement of parking facilities displaced by the construction of a privately funded project. This principle applies to the Center for Performing Arts, presently under construction. We propose that the Representative Assembly pass a resolution demanding that the replacement costs for the 1230 parking places displaced by that project be charged to the project. It will clearly be essential that the fund-raising campaign in support of the Center be expanded to cover these costs.
4. A "transportation and parking impact analysis" should be required for each capital construction project that is embodied in the five-year planning document of the campus. The Academic Senate Divisional Committee on Academic Planning and Budget Review should review each analysis.
5. Campus Administration should investigate the financing of parking facilities on the campus of California State University, Sacramento, and neighboring community colleges. A study should determine how those institutions are able to provide parking for much lower fees than are charged, or projected to be charged, on the Davis campus. The Administration should report its findings to the Academic Senate.
6. Plans for any additional parking structures, beyond the existing structure and the one presently nearing completion, should be suspended until full campus consultation on these plans has taken place. Any administrative plan for additional parking structures at UCD should be formally submitted to the Academic Senate, as well as other campus employee organizations, for review and comment.
7. The latest revision of the UC Davis Long-Range Access Plan (LRAP), currently in progress, should be submitted to the Academic Senate, and to other employee organizations, for formal review and comment.
8. The Divisional Academic Senate should adopt legislation that fixes responsibility systematically to review campus parking problems and policies by creating a Joint Standing Committee (DDB 30) on Transportation and Parking. That Committee should include representatives from all impacted campus constituencies (faculty, Academic Federation, UCD Staff Assembly, and students), and report annually to their various constituencies including the Academic Senate Representative Assembly.
9. The University of California should revisit the idea of subsidizing faculty and staff parking, with a view toward being able to provide convenient parking to its employees at a reasonable cost (as compared with other institutions of higher education in the same region). There are no existing constraints upon the University (or the campus) preventing it from drawing such subsidies from non-State funds. The University should investigate the possibility of applying State funds toward such a subsidy as well. 

APPENDIX: DATABASE

1. Operating Principles Applicable to Parking Policy: The Academic Senate Position. Prepared by the Subcommittee on Parking, Systemwide (9-Campus) University Committee on Faculty Welfare, May 21, 1990. Approved by the Systemwide Academic Council, March 13, 1991. (This is an excellent document although it did not foresee the tremendous impact of future "replacement" parking structures on campus parking fees.)
2. 1993-94 through 1997-98 TAPS Budgets (Projected and Actual).
3. Long Range Access Plan, Transportation and Parking Services, University of California, Davis, 1997-2005, January 1997; 31 pages plus appendices document.
4. Transportation and Parking Services Long-Range Development Plan. June 26, 1998 Letter from R. Bryan Miller, Chair of the Academic Senate to Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef. August 17, 1998 reply from Vice Chancellor-Administration Janet Hamilton to Miller.
5. Documents from Systemwide Nine-Campus Committee on Faculty Welfare Parking Subcommittee, 1998-2000.
6. August 3, 1999 Document, List of 1998-99 Accomplishments and Goals for 1999-2000, Division of TAPS (13 pages).
7. Comparison of Parking Permits and Annual Rates, UC and Selected CSU Campuses, 1998-99. Compiled by the UC Davis Academic Senate Committee on Faculty Welfare.
8. 1999-2000 Memos generated by the Parking Subcommittee of the Systemwide University Faculty Welfare Committee.
9. Information from Chancellor’s Office, California State University, Long Beach.
10. The State of Campus Parking, Annual Report of the UC Berkeley Subcommittee on Transportation and Parking, March 27, 1999.
11. February 3, 2000 interview with Brodie Hamilton, Director, UC Davis Transportation and Parking Services (TAPS) and Cliff Contreras, Associate Director, UC Davis Transportation and Parking Services. TAPS budgets for several years were reviewed in some detail.
12. March 23, 2000 interview with Janet Hamilton, Vice Chancellor-Administration.
13. June 1, 2000 interview with Vice Chancellor Hamilton and Chancellor Vanderhoef.
14. Two informal administration responses to earlier committee Interim Report Drafts put together by TAPS, the latter response being received June 1, 2000.