a. Lot Designations
b. Fee Structure
c. No Fee Parking
d. Loading Zones
e. Emeritus Program
a. Deferred Maintenance
b. Revenue Redistribution to Transit
c. Parking Ticket Fines
d. Gated Lots
e. Cash Balance
Sources of Parking Revenues - Pie Chart
a. Permit Fees
b. Departmental Assessments
c. Campus Parking Garage Proposed Rate Increases
d. Meter Parking Proposed Rate Increases
IV. Recommended Policy Changes
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
Attachment E
Attachment F
Attachment G
The Parking & Transportation Advisory Board (PTAB) was established
in May 1995 by Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance,
Paul Page, to obtain broad-based input from the campus community
regarding parking and transportation issues. Prior to PTAB, there
existed a Parking Advisory Committee which last met in the mid
80's when the current parking program was developed. Given the
previous lack of meaningful input from users into the UMass parking
and transportation system there was an obvious need for a concentrated
review of the system and recurring operational problems. Two facilities
condition studies also identify $3.5 million in deferred maintenance
for surface lots and the Campus Garage - the December, 1994, Parking
System Improvement Plan Phase I Report, and the April, 1996,
Condition Survey of the Campus Parking Garage at the University
of Massachusetts. These reports, as well as budget problems
and aging facilities, also provided the general stimulus for a
comprehensive review and assessment of parking and transportation
policies and financial models.
The University of Massachusetts Amherst Parking Services Department
is a self-sustaining business unit which is operated through fee
revenue. By state statute, revenues from parking fines are utilized
to support student scholarships. The operating costs of the system
are currently exceeding revenue, declining cash balances are being
used to correct year-end deficits, and no contributions have been
made for the last three years to facilities renewal and replacements
despite a deferred maintenance liability in excess of $3.5 million.
With few minor exceptions for parking meter and garage hourly
fees, there have been no parking fee increases since the fall
of 1987, despite steadily increasing costs and aging facilities.
With these conditions in mind, it was clear that an analysis of
the Parking Services financial structure was essential, but it
also seemed appropriate to comprehensively review existing parking
and transportation policies, regulations, and overall systems
from an operational, mid-term, long-term, and planning perspective.
The Parking and Transportation Advisory Board (PTAB) was formed
to acquire the broadest possible community input and perspective
regarding these issues.
The PTAB serves in an advisory capacity to the Vice Chancellor
for Administration and Finance by reviewing, evaluating, and recommending
policies and proposals related to parking and transportation on
the Amherst Campus. A major focus of the Board has been to provide
a University-wide perspective regarding parking and transportation
related policies and issues in a manner that supports the University's
mission. The Board first met on October 20, 1995, and has met
regularly on a bi-weekly basis ever since.
1. Review, evaluate, and recommend major changes to:
2. Review, evaluate, and recommend priorities for:
The current membership is listed in Attachment A
- PTAB Membership List.
The initial meetings were focused on informing the Board about
the existing parking and transportation systems, as well as the
Campus Master Plan, with the intention of providing a broad and
thorough background to the membership. The Board also heard a
presentation from the Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Parking.
After the presentations, the Board entered into lengthy discussions,
essentially brainstorming parking and transportation issues and
their priority to the campus. Several issues were identified in
early "retreat" type meetings which set the stage for
the Board's collective and primary focus.
After several meetings, the PTAB established their topics for
discussion and review. In priority order, they were:
The PTAB then focused its attention on creating a set of principles
which would be used to guide their discussions on campus parking
and transportation systems and potential changes. Many ideas were
considered, added, eliminated, and re-added -- the discussions
were extensive and lively. The following guiding principles were
adopted for use in planning, reviewing, and operating the parking
and transportation systems at UMass Amherst:
The parking and
transportation systems of UMass Amherst should:
|
After the Guiding Principles were approved, discussion began about
the current parking system and included several days of discussion
about different types of parking systems used on other campuses
and the applicability of different systems to the UMASS setting.
Discussion for the first seven months focused on parking lot system
issues, not financial issues. Essentially, the Board determined
that the current system (reserved lots) was preferred over other
systems. The five-tier color designation system was maintained,
i.e., Red lots for faculty and staff, Blue lots for faculty, staff,
and graduate assistants, Green lots for faculty, staff, graduate
students and non-resident students, and Purple and Yellow lots
for any community member.
a. Lot Designations
Further discussions then focused around the specific lots that the PTAB determined to be problem areas. From these discussions, the PTAB recommended that Lot 40 change from a "BLUE" (faculty/staff, graduate assistants) lot to a "RED" (faculty/staff) lot. This change is recommended because Lot 40 was inside the campus core and because it serves the same population as nearby Lot 64 which has the longest and slowest moving wait list in the parking system. The current designation for Lot 40 has graduate students with access to more convenient parking than more permanent employees who work in the core of campus and was inconsistent within the system. All graduate assistants currently in Lot 40 would be "grandfathered." It is also recommended that graduate assistants on the Lot 40 wait list also be accommodated by moving them to other lot wait lists for which they are eligible in the same date and order they were on the Lot 40 wait list. This wait list procedure is consistent with a similar change the Board recommended for Lot 43. This lot was changed from a "GREEN" (faculty/staff, graduate students, and non-resident students) to a "RED" (faculty/staff) lot for Fall 1996 as part of the parking changes necessitated by the North Area construction and to preserve core parking for employees working in the North section of campus.
b. Fee Structure
Considerable discussion centered around the existing fee structure for parking permits. This discussion focused on the fee structure only and did not deal with actual fee changes. Early on, it was determined that it was reasonable to allocate fees based on the five-tier reserved lot system. The current pricing structure has no rational basis and was not modified as the campus grew. Why do Red lots range in price from $35 to $100 per year? If a lot is Red, it is generally adjacent to campus buildings; if it is Red, it is generally proximate to an employee's work location. After a significant period of discussion, the argument was made that everyone should pay for the relative convenience of their parking. The recommendation was then made to change lot pricing so that same tiered (same color) lots would be identically priced with all Red lots at the same price, Blue lots at the same price, etc.. Users can make choices regarding convenience and price over time. This recommendation was initially made as a system change; the financial impact was discussed at a later date.
c. No Fee Parking
Another discussion about the parking system revolved around who pays for parking on campus. After review of the current "no fee" users, several changes were recommended. It was recommended that the Five College Staff and the Learning in Retirement Programs continue to be provided with reciprocal parking at no cost. However, it was recommended that one department, the Faculty Club, be assessed for parking of vehicles it brings to the Campus that do not otherwise pay into the parking system. The lack of contribution by the Faculty Club was inconsistent with other assessed operations on campus. The Faculty Club would also be charged a discounted fee for the validated parking permits it issues.
d. Loading Zones
The "loading zone with flasher program," currently supporting the West side of campus, was recommended for expansion to the East side of campus. This program provides 15 minute loading zones (with flashers on) and vendor/service spaces for each building. Even though this program eliminates a few "regular" lot spaces, the benefits were considered to outweigh the loss of spaces in the core where efficiency and practicality of deliveries and service were determined to be a priority. The loading zones offer legal parking to anyone for 15 minutes near virtually every building on campus. This would give faculty, staff, students, and visitors the opportunity to find a very short-term parking space and discourages violators in reserved lots. The PTAB endorsed this change after evaluating the success of the program currently in place on the West side of campus. Stricter enforcement of the 15 minute time period was also encouraged by the Board.
e. Emeritus Program
The Emeritus Parking Program was also reviewed. The PTAB recommended that any retired employee be allowed to park in the upper levels of the garage and exit "free" by showing their retired staff ID card and by signing the back of their garage entrance ticket. Additionally, any retired employee whose department head documents that they are providing direct services to the University be allowed to renew their existing permit at no charge. Other retired employees who are no longer providing such service to the University may also choose to continue to pay for and retain their existing lot permits.
In recent years, "Emeritus" status and subsequent parking privileges have been extended to ALL retired faculty and professional staff. There are now 300+ Emeritus permits in the system with additional permits being added continuously as a direct result of the retirement incentive program. The current program is becoming increasingly intrusive to the reserved lot system. With 300+ mobile-type permits, the parking system is unable to provide reliable service to daily parkers such as employees and commuting students. Subscription rates (i.e., the number of permits issued) for reserved lots must be lower to accommodate possible Emeritus parkers. This can lead to empty spaces most of the time and sharp criticism from those regular users who would like access to proximal lots. Overall, this growing "mobile" component of the system contributes to inconsistent and unpredictable parking space availability for those who pay and use the reserved lot on a daily basis, regardless of subscription rates. If the subscription rate is not lowered, paying, full-time users can find themselves without a space, sometimes park illegally (e.g., fire lanes, grass, etc.) and are ticketed and occasionally towed. The clear sentiment of the PTAB is to assure paying users access to their reserved lots, especially if fees are to increase. To partially mitigate the impact of this change, the recommendation also provides core campus parking options to our growing retired population.
Parking Services is a self-sustaining, revenue-based trust fund
with no other source of income other than revenue from fees, assessments,
parking meters and the Campus Garage. Revenue from fees includes
employee and student permits, reserved-space garage permits, temporary
permits, mobile permits, and vendor permits. Assessments are paid
by some departments whose programs utilize parking facilities.
Currently, departments that pay assessments include: Athletics,
Mullins Center, Fine Arts Center, Conference Services, Continuing
Education, and the Campus Center Hotel. To achieve consistency,
a new assessment for the Faculty Club was recommended by PTAB.
Following are charts representing the summaries of the PTAB funding
model and revenue needs by category:
| PARKING FUNDING MODEL SUMMARY | |||
| Current Revenue | Additional Revenue Needed | Total Revenue | |
| FY98 | $1,081,067 | $409,119 | $1,490,186 |
| FY99 | $839,883 | $1,920,950 | |
Please refer to AttachmentB - Current
Parking Operations Revenue and Expenses.
| ADDITIONAL REVENUE NEEDED BY CATEGORY | FY98 | FY99 |
| Operations | $59,433 | $87,316 |
| Renewal and Replacement | 0 | $388,400 |
| "Catch Up" Deferred Maintenance | $291,705 | $357,677 |
| Cash Balance Restoration | $57,981 | $6,490 |
| TOTAL | $409,119 | $839,883 |
Please refer to Attachment C - Parking
Operations Revenue and Expense Model.
The Board had many hours of discussion regarding financial issues
that began by reviewing the operating budget and the revenue and
expense history for Parking and Transit Services. These discussions
resulted in recommendations to continue certain practices and
implement several new practices.
a. Deferred Maintenance
The parking facilities (i.e., surface lots and garage) have been neglected for many years and are crumbling. During this same period, fees have remained essentially unchanged. After significant review of professional consultant studies of UMASS parking facilities, the PTAB unanimously recommended additional funding for deferred maintenance costs and renewal and replacement (R&R) needs. Nearly 90% of the proposed fee increase is targeted toward the UMass Amherst's crumbling parking infrastructure. This funding is critical to keep pace with aging and deterioration, as well as the backlog of deferred maintenance. This change represents the Board's top priority issue. Please refer to Attachment D - Parking Services Plant Fund Needs - Surface Lots and Garage.
b. Revenue Redistribution to Transit
Parking Services has redistributed $401,610 of revenue on an annual basis to Transit Services since FY86. This contribution represents the integration of the parking and transportation systems and is part of the University's annual investment in Transit Services. The revenue redistribution is used for shuttle services for permit holders and general transportation for the campus community. An integrated parking and transportation system promotes a pedestrian campus as well as a park and ride commuting system. The continuation of this revenue transfer was endorsed by PTAB and additional funding was recommended to enhance the campus shuttle service. This additional shuttle enhancement is an essential element in providing timely service to those who chose, because of price or personal reasons, to park in perimeter campus lots and bus to their desired destination on campus. Please refer to Attachment E - Transit Shuttle Service.
c. Parking Ticket Fines
Parking ticket fine money collected by Parking Services has historically (by statute) been directed to the Parking Scholarship Account and administered by Academic Support Services. The Board voted to continue this practice, but plans to review the parking ticket process and fine structure when it reviews Parking Enforcement.
d. Gated Lots
In our current general parking system, no gated lots exist. The Board recommended the exploration of gated reserved lots using access cards on a test basis. Not all lots lend themselves to gating, but those lots that can be gated could potentially eliminate reserved lot violators and allow reallocation of enforcement efforts.
e. Cash Balance
Parking Services revenue (income) is not collected equally on a month to month basis. Due to the academic calendar of the University and to employee preference for payroll deduction, the actual monthly income varies widely. The PTAB recommended that a financially responsible minimum cash balance be established and maintained for the Parking Services operating budget. This cash balance is approximately equal to four months of salary expense. The cash balance has been used to cover operational deficits and has eroded over time due, in part, to lack of a fee increases since the fall of 1987.
After reviewing the revenue needs, the Board began discussion
of how to generate the additional revenue needed to satisfy the
operational, renewal and replacement, and deferred maintenance
budget shortfalls. During this discussion, many approaches were
evaluated. At the conclusion of the discussions, the Board unanimously
approved a fee increase across all four parking revenue sources
- permit fees (including temporary, mobile, and vendor permits),
departmental assessments, garage rates, and parking meter rates.
The next page contains a pie chart representing the various sources of parking revenue.
a. Permit Fees
In the PTAB model, revenue from permits and reserved parking in the Campus Garage would make up approximately 41.6% of Parking Services total current revenue in FY99. The recommended increases in parking permit fees will generate the same relative percentage of the revenue needed in future operating budgets and was also a similar percentage in the past. The remaining revenue will be allocated proportionately in each category. The specific permit fee increases are found in Attachment F - Parking and Garage Operations Fee Increases FY 1998 and FY 1999.
Temporary permits are issued to employees, students, visitors, and vendors who have a reasonable need for such a permit (e.g., primary vehicle is being repaired). Temporaries are also purchased by departments for their guests and visitors. Under this proposal, temporary parking permit fees would increase proportionately with lot permit increases, as shown in the following table.
| TEMPORARY PARKING PROPOSED INCREASES | ||||||
Permit Type |
Current |
FY98 |
FY99 | |||
one lot |
all lots |
one lot |
all lots |
one lot |
all lots | |
Daily |
$2 |
$3 |
$3 |
$5 |
$4 |
$7 |
Weekly |
$8 |
$15 |
$12 |
$25 |
$16 |
$35 |
Monthly |
$25 |
$60 |
$40 |
$100 |
$50 |
$140 |
b. Departmental Assessments
Assessments are paid by a number of departments for parking facilities based on the usage their programs generate after hours and on weekends for vehicles which do not otherwise pay for parking in lots, at meters, or in the Garage. The assessment rates are subject to change if the departments usage, e.g., ticket sales, program activity, etc., changes. The proposed increases in assessments are explained in Attachment G - FY 1999 Parking Operations Assessment Model.
c. Campus Parking Garage Proposed Rate Increases
The following represents a proposed increase in parking garage rates that is proportional to all other revenue categories and is consistent with Amherst market value.
| Current | $.70
per hour
$.60 per hour/prepay | $7.00 per day
$2.50 per day - Hotel (multiple exits) $3.75 (one day/one exit) - NSP $6.00 (two day/one exit) - NSP |
| FY98 | $.90
per hour
$.60 per hour/prepay | $9.00 per day (one exit)
$3.25 per day - Hotel (multiple exits) $4.85 (one day/one exit) - NSP $7.75 (two day/one exit ) - NSP |
| FY99 | $.90
per hour
$.60 per hour/prepay | $9.00 per day (one exit)
$3.25 per day - Hotel $4.85 (one day/one exit) - NSP $7.75 (two day/one exit) - NSP |
NSP = New Students Program
d. Meter Parking Proposed Rate Increases
The following represents a proposed increase in meter rates that is proportional to all other revenue categories and is consistent with Amherst market value.
| METER PARKING PROPOSED INCREASES | |
| Current | $.60 per hour |
| FY98 | $.75 per hour |
| FY99 | $.75 per hour |
The PTAB recommended that fee increases be implemented in two phases. During Phase One in FY98, parking permit fees and department assessment fees will be adjusted to reflect 50% of the total increase. In Phase Two for FY99 the rates adjust again to the full amount. Garage and meter rates are increased the whole amount in FY98. It is anticipated that beginning in FY 2000, Parking Services will need to increase revenue an average of approximately 2% per year to maintain the necessary funding for these services, but this does not include funding for long-term investments such as new construction of lots or parking decks. Please refer to Attachment F - Parking and Garage Operations Fee Increases FY98 and FY99 for the recommended fee structure.
IV. Recommended Policy Changes
Over the last year, the PTAB's primary focus has been on two issues
-- reviewing the parking lot system and assessing the financial
condition of the Parking Services revenue operation. In the course
of discussing these two issues, several policies were recommended
for significant change while several policies were merely revamped
or reviewed without recommendation for change. These recommended
changes or confirmation of existing policy are listed below:
The discussions about the Parking Lot System, Parking Revenue
Uses, and Parking Revenue Sources which led to these recommendations
have consumed one year of PTAB's time, leaving several areas yet
to be reviewed. In summary, the Major Focus Topics previously
identified by the PTAB, in priority order, were:
Items #1 through #4 have been discussed and changes recommended
as necessary. The remaining issues have been discussed either
directly or indirectly. PTAB will continue its deliberation of
the remaining issues and will likely play a major role in developing
the Parking Master Plan. In addition, PTAB will continue to have
input in:
PTAB considers part of its charge to be an ongoing review of the complex and highly visible campus and regional parking and transportation programs. To that end, new issues may evolve while existing ones abate. Essentially, it would be reasonable to assume that PTAB's work will continue and this Report and its recommendations are an important first step.
