Erindale College Council

The COLLEGE AFFARS COMMITTEE met on Monday, November 18, 2002 at 3:10 p.m., in Room 3138.

MINUTES

PRESENT: M. Overton (In the Chair), I. Orchard, P. Donoghue, R. Baker, K. Nugent, J. Malcolm, S. Qureshi, S. Kessler, J. Seligman, B. Barton, A. Mirza, U. Krull, D. Hamilton, R. Hopkins, P. Nagra, N. Collins, B. Murck, C. Ferencz Hammond
REGRETS: L. Collins, L. Martin, M. Lettieri, G. Crawford, J.P. Poe, M. Marji, I. Wiecek, G. White, S. Kibria, J. Donovan, D. Borowski, A. Bellerby, A. Birkenbergs, I. Still, J. Binks, P. Ash, C. Boyd, L. Collins, K. Duncliffe, J. Lim, C. McGrath, J. McCurdy-Myers, L. Paris, G. Richter, A. Vyas

  1. Adoption of the Agenda
    Approved by all present.

  2. Minutes of the Previous Meeting
    The minutes of the previous meeting were not available – will work with Chair, L. Martin to capture the major items of business from the last meeting and they are to be presented at the next meeting.

  3. Business Arising from the Minutes
    None.

  4. Reports from Subcommittees:
    a) Transportation and Parking subcommittee – Ulli Krull

    U. Krull wanted to emphasize the seriousness of the parking situation and state that the cost assessment has determined that it is not plausible to build present structures on present sites, without incurring a very large deficit in the long-term. Discussion over the last two years has pointed to this year as the final year of breathing space before UTM is in crisis. He asserted that after looking at a number of different options, it had become clear that remote parking was not going to make an impact and that the proposed deal with Mississauga Transit was not going to make a significant impact on the relevant numbers. In his opinion, only two factors will make a difference: the introduction of carpooling and more efficient classroom scheduling. He suggests that the implementation of these two factors, can take pressure off next year’s demands, and can help UTM make adjustments to the construction plan and perhaps build in stages.


    b) Grounds Monitoring subcommittee – N. Collins

    Nothing to report.

  5. New Business: Parking Presentation: Preliminary Presentation of the Parking Ancillary and Management Report – P. Donoghue
    Committee members were sent the Parking Ancillary Operating Plan Management Report from 2003-4 to 2007-8. A revised version was handed out at the meeting as well as an executive summary of the policies and background on ancillaries by SARG (Service Ancillary Review Group).

    a) Overview of SARG Process: Explanation of Guidelines and Policies

    P. Donoghue described the four basic operating principles that guide all ancillaries, such as Food Services, Parking, Residence and Conference Services. These are: to operate without subsidy from the operating budget; to provide for all costs of capital renewal, including deferred maintenance, having achieved the previous two points, to create and maintain an operating reserve as a protection against unforeseen events and finally, having met all these conditions, the service ancillaries will contribute their net revenues to the operating budget. These policies are the context for all the ancillary budgets.


    b) Parking Proposal – Initial Draft

    Until last year, the Parking Ancillary at UTM was contributing approximately $500K per year into the operating budget, however, with the construction of the underground parking garage of the CCIT building that is no longer possible.

    P. Donoghue pointed out several points to keep in mind when looking at the first draft of the Parking Ancillary Management Report. One, the enrolment projections increased from 30% to 60% for the same period of time, a significant increase. Second, UTM is not only a commuter campus, but also a suburban commuter campus; therefore patterns and expectations may be different than at a commuter campus.

    One of the key objectives of the Master Plan was to avoid paving, even though paving is substantially less expensive. For example, one can create a surface parking spot for approximately $2200, an above ground parking structure for $22,000, and an underground parking spot for approximately $32,000. The Master plan outlines the creation of underground parking under each of the new buildings as they are constructed. In addition to the underground parking, it was expected that an above ground parking structure would also be required. With all of these assumptions and the significant costs associated with underground parking, the costs are too prohibitive to continue with that plan. Therefore if building sites are kept in their projected locations, above existing parking lots, then by the time an above ground structure is built (Lot#4), UTM will have to build 1200 spots to ‘catch up’. With all of this in mind, the Master Plan may need to be revisited in the sense of the specific building sites, otherwise building will take place on top of parking lots and spaces, which will have to be replaced.

    In addition, some other possibilities need to be looked at to ameliorate the parking situation. Target ratio in the Master plan is 30%. These possibilities may include: 1) Remote Parking at a cost of $150,000 for 150 spots, but security is a concern and remote lot needs to be found 2) Increasing the use and convenience of Public Transit, however impact of this improvement may be marginal in terms of demand for services from a suburban commuter campus 3) Carpooling, although complicated to implement, it could cover as much as 400 spots and has been successfully implemented in several U.S. schools.

    Summary of Long Range Options (outlined in handout):
    1) As outlined in the Master Plan: cost is too prohibitive financially as it results in a $50M cumulative debt by 2013-14
    2) No more underground parking under Athletics and Library, but build a 1700 spot above ground parking garage
    3) Should consider this: Keep Lot 2, 3 and 4 with no parking under Athletics and Library; consider other sites for Athletics and Library and above ground parking structure, so that there is no construction on existing sites.

    This discussion of the development of a long-range plan for parking is well beyond the scope of this committee, but it should be discussed and raised at College Council and plan over the next 3 to 4 years. However, rates do need to be set for next year and the plan maintains the increases for next year at the same level at which they were proposed last year.


    Parking Ancillary Financials – C. Capewell:

    C. Capewell explained that in order to satisfy several approval stages at St. George, this parking plan has to be financially viable up to the year 2013/14 and show that UTM can build an above ground structure and still break even in the timelines that are set. This plan accomplishes this goal, one year ahead of schedule. Overview of financial plan:

    Forecast for current year 2002/03: forecasting deficit of $314,000 due to Lot #9. Policies dictate that this must be expensed in one year and lot itself was over budget due to problems with water pockets. On target for next year with planned increases and will start to build a surplus that will go toward building projects like CCIT. Next year, there will be a profit of $562,000. As well, UTM plans to pave an additional 94 spots at the back of Lot #8. As shown in the Supply/Demand schedule in the handout, next year will be tightest year because CCIT garage will not yet be open.

    In 2004/5, the CCIT garage will be open and UTM will only have half a year of mortgage to pay, which accounts for the small losses in the first year. In 2005/06 the huge deficit appears that is offset by the existing operation, so that the combined budget has a small profit of $200,000. In 2006/07, the plan shows the above ground 1700 spot parking structure for which no site has been picked as of yet. This year the projection is a profit of $120,000, because again only half a year’s mortgage needs to be paid. In 2007/08 all of the mortgages are on line and there is a combined deficit of $848,000. This does not include a float. UTM will have 5 years to work through a deficit. By the year 2010/11 starting to be in the black and five year after opening, UTM will have to put money into a reserve in case of a major problem – this has been worked into the budget. In 2011/12 will have a profit of $4000 and will start to build up fiscally from that point. UTM is required to break even in five years and that requirement largely drives the price of permits – will set prices as low as can while still meeting objectives and restrictions which are required to operate. Rates are outlined in the package. UTM has set the rate for the above-ground structure the same as an unreserved spot, taking into account relative convenience of the lot. The model sets the CCIT garage 28% higher than a reserved spot in a surface lot, which in turn is 28% higher than an unreserved spot. This is a tiered system and could be adjusted.

    There was a question (N. Collins) as to providing comparison rates from other universities. C. Capewell pointed out that Schedule 6 in the handout package has this comparison for rates from last year. There was also a question regarding the differing costs between an underground and surface parking lots (R. Baker). C. Capewell added that there are utilities costs and other maintenance costs associated with an underground lot. P. Donoghue commented that as the plan is developed, a higher degree of precision can be applied to differential pricing of the lots, with convenience being a consideration. P. Donoghue also commented that classroom scheduling will have a major impact on the parking issue – at present most of the classes are concentrated at the middle part of the day; in the future this scheduling will have to be spread out, to be fiscally responsible.


    c) Next Steps – P. Donoghue

    P. Donoghue explained that UTM has to take its ancillary budgets to St. George for the SARG review. The College Affairs Committee, will in turn report to Erindale College Council on November the 21st. This is very much a preliminary version of the parking issue. This stage gives faculty, staff and students a sense of what the challenges are and allows for suggestions and comments so that the overall package can be refined. The financial plan will not change in a significant way for 2003/04, as it is consistent with last year’s presentation. He noted that he would like to see some comments and ideas regarding the parking plan, before it is submitted for review. It was stated that more work needs to be done by the Parking Committee in terms of researching alternate possibilities like carpooling. M. Overton wanted clarification that the purpose of the November 18th College Affairs committee meeting is for comment and discussion, not for action. P. Donoghue confirmed this and added that this issue will be brought back to this Committee in a joint meeting in January of 2003.


    Discussion/Questions from the Committee:

    J. Malcolm acknowledged that while parking is a colossal problem, there would also be an enormous resentment from long-term employees of UTM regarding the rates and therefore asked the committee to look into some way of ameliorating the cost of parking to long-term employees. N. Collins stated that the UTM community needs to be pushed to make the necessary adjustments and sacrifices to maintain the vision of the campus in the long-term. R. Baker commented that to reduce the fees in any way for employees, UTM would have to cut programs within the operating budget. He questioned the possibility of having parking underneath buildings that are resting on stilts. C. Capewell added that this had been considered, but that it would add cost to the buildings. J. Malcolm asked whether or not Governing Council had been asked to ameliorate some of their financial policies and restrictions. C. Capewell commented that work will be done in this regard, but that it will not make a 50% price differential. This financial plan is based on an 8% mortgage rate, which is according to policy, but in reality, the rate will be considerably lower than that. I. Orchard commented that UTM is part of the current review of the SARG process and will therefore have input. R. Baker suggested that perhaps underground reserved parking is priced too low. On the issue of carpooling use increasing as rates increase, P. Nagra commented that many students choose to attend UTM because of its convenience as a commuter campus and that in his opinion carpooling will be difficult to implement. A question was raised regarding the results of the discussion with Mississauga Transit. UTM is interested in additional buses, primarily serving Square One Shopping Centre. Mississauga Transit does not have buses for new routes; they would only reconfigure existing routes. In addition Mississauga Transit could provide a pass for eight months, if every full time student paid a fee of approximately $100, but there is a question as to whether or not students would vote to take on this expense. However, discussions are being held with GO Transit regarding the so-called Higher Ed Route and they seem to be progressing well. B. Barton expressed concern regarding prices for faculty who teach at UTM and the downtown campus and as such have to pay a combined price. C. Capewell explained that there is a reduced rate to faculty who teach at both campuses and have to purchase two permits.

  6. Next Meeting
    The next meeting of the College Affairs Committee will be on January 14, 2003.

  7. Adjournment
    Motion to adjourn by I. Orchard. Seconded by R. Baker. The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.