The COLLEGE AFFARS
COMMITTEE met on Monday, November 18, 2002 at 3:10 p.m., in Room 3138.
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
Adoption of the Agenda
Approved by all present.
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.
Business Arising from the Minutes
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
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
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.
The next meeting of the College Affairs Committee will be on January
Motion to adjourn by I. Orchard. Seconded by R. Baker. The meeting
was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.