Erindale College Council

The RESOURCE PLANNING AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE met on Tuesday, November 19, 2002 at 3:10 p.m., in Room 3138.

PRESENT: G. Sprules (Chair), P. Donoghue, R. Baker, P. Silcox, A. Mullin, C. Capewell, G. Anderson, K. Duncliffe (For M. Overton), A. Mirza, B. Schneider, P. King, G. Crawford, C. Ferencz Hammond
REGRETS: I. Orchard, J. C. Poë, M. Overton, M. Lettieri, G. Gad, G. Katz

  1. Adoption of the Agenda
    Motion to adopt the agenda made by P. Donoghue. Seconded by R. Baker. Approved by all present.
  2. Minutes of the Previous Meeting
    Minutes from the last meeting were not available.
  3. Business Arising from the Minutes
    None.
  4. 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
    P. Donoghue commented that 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 and the costs involved, that is no longer possible.

    All of the ancillary budgets go to SARG in February, where they are approved and then go on through governance, ultimately being considered by Business Board. P. Donoghue explained that with this first draft of the parking plan, he hoped to generate discussion earlier than last year. As general background he commented that UTM will continue to experience the pressures associated with being a suburban commuter campus as well as expansion pressures of a 60% growth target, (up from the earlier projection of 30% for the same period). In addition, the Master Plan calls for the construction of underground parking under all the new buildings, buildings which are sited on top of existing parking lots. It was also expected that an above ground parking structure would also be required, sited on top of Lot#4. One of the key objectives of the Master Plan was to avoid paving, despite the relatively low cost: a surface parking spot costs about $2200, in an above ground parking structure $22,000, and an underground parking spot about $32,000.

    In a 60% growth scenario several long-range options were presented:
    Plan #1:
    Strictly follow the provisions of the Master Plan: not financially viable; with moderate price increases it results in a $50M cumulative debt by 2013-14. If this plan is followed, UTM would need to build 400 parking spots under the Athletics Complex, 400 spots under the Library and would need a 1700 parking spot garage in the long run in order to meet the target ratio of 30% - ratio of parking spots to actual users. Schedule 7 in the Management report outlines the parking demand and supply. A question was raised as to the projected price of a permit if this plan is followed and C. Capewell explained that a reserved permit in the CCIT underground garage in 2007/08 would cost approximately $1,600.
    Plan #2:
    No parking garages under Athletics and Library, but build a 1700 spot above ground parking garage on Lot #4. This results in an under-supply and cumulative deficit of approximately $32M or an additional $650 per permit (for the highest price point).
    Plan #3:
    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. Master Plan building sites would have to be adjusted in this scenario. The result is a deficit of approximately $18M or an additional $350 per permit as an incremental price.
    In addition, some other possibilities need to be looked at to ameliorate the parking situation. These include: 1) Remote Parking at a cost of $150,000 for 150 spots, but security is a major concern 2) Increasing the use and convenience of Public Transit, however impact of this improvement may be marginal in terms of total demand for parking 3) Carpooling, although complicated to implement, it could ‘recover’ as many as 400 spots and has been successfully implemented in several U.S. schools 4) More efficient scheduling of classes, which will spread the peak-hours demand for spots, and which could benefit many other support services on campus.

    The point was made that there is a cost to staying true to the intent and provisions of the Master Plan. Thus, the UTM community has to consider the value it will attach to the protection of the green space on campus. P. Silcox suggested that the committee approve next year’s increase in permit prices (about 20%) and then move on to the discussion of the ‘bigger’ issues. There was a comment that the actual increase would depend on which long-term option would be chosen. It was suggested that the committee could approve a qualified endorsement of an increase at least equivalent to the 20% that was approved last year. In addition, the Parking Subcommittee with additional members from the Resource Planning and Priorities Committee (RPPC) and from the College Affair Committee, could look at the relevant issues and make recommendations regarding future steps. R. Baker commented that there was a large amount of effort and consultation, which went into the development of the Master Plan, which reflects the UTM Community’s wishes. G. Anderson suggested a greater differentiation between reserved and non-reserved parking spots. C. Capewell explained that 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: a tiered rate system that could be adjusted.

    Motion by P. Silcox: That RPPC approve the increases to parking permits at the minimum level for 2003/2004 (20%), but with the provision to consider higher increases overall if deemed necessary. Seconded by G. Crawford.

    Discussion ensued on whether making this initial increase would be considered as ‘set’ and hinder any further changes to the rate, even if these changes were deemed necessary. There was a also a concern expressed as to the increased parking cost to staff and to those faculty who teach on both campuses and need to buy two parking permits. Concern was expressed that any course of action, which is contrary to the key elements of the Master Plan, is not acceptable.
    Question called by P. Silcox. Motion defeated by a vote of 5 to 4.

    Motion by B. Schneider: That RPPC reaffirm support for the principles and objectives of the Master Plan as they relate to building sites and parking supply strategies. Seconded by A. Mullin.
    Discussion: it was noted that this motion does not necessarily mean that the original placement of buildings would not change at all, but that it is important and urgent to deal with the issue of converting the principles of the Master Plan into concrete financial figures. G. Sprules suggested that Option #3 in the parking plan is somewhat extreme in its departure from the Master Plan. Some of the principles of the Master Plan include “compacting the form of future development to create a vital, unified campus with a consolidated arrangement of buildings, ecological stewardship, a complex pattern of overlapping elements, provide planted and paved open spaces at varying scale, locate sites close to accessibility, limit vehicular impact on surrounding community…” (Master Plan, page 10)
    Motion carried with a vote in favour of eight and one abstention.

    Motion by A. Mullin: That the Parking Subcommittee with additional members from the Resource Planning and Priorities Committee (RPPC) and from the College Affairs Committee, reconsider and refine the initial proposal – with particular attention to the details of the Master Plan - and report back on alternatives and specific pricing recommendations. Seconded by P. King.
    Motion carried unanimously.
  5. Next Meeting
    There will be a joint meeting of the Resource Planning and Priorities Committee and the College Affairs committee in January of 2003.
  6. Adjournment
    Motion to adjourn by G. Anderson. Seconded by B. Schneider. The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.