U-PASS Advisory Board June 1, 2012 Present: Alicia Halberg, U-PASS Liaison Bill Dow, ASUW Representative, Advisory Board Chair Rene Singleton, Student Life Celeste Gilman, Transportation Services Katie Bass, Guest Kate Callison, ASUW Board of Directors, Guest Austin R. Bell, ASUW Representative Miles Fernandez, ASUW Representative Aaron Lykken, GPSS Representative Josh Kavanagh, Transportation Services Melanie Mayock, GPSS Representative, Advisory Board Vice-Chair Becky Edmonds, GPSS Representative Zach Nostdal, GPSS Representative, Guest Conor McLean, ASUW Representative 1. Meeting called to order a. No guests present to speak b. Motion to move up “UAW arbitration” to the first agenda item i. Motion passed 2. UAW arbitration – Josh Kavanagh a. Many students might have heard about the recent news with the UAW arbitration. Transportation Services has talked with the Advisory Board in the past about this; UAW filed a grievance against the University because of the U-PASS fee and another mandatory student fee, the student facilities renovation fee. b. The grievance was unclear in some ways. i. Difficulties defining a problem statement. c. Arbitration outcome i. There should be a refund of U-PASS fees paid by ASEs previously during the 2011-12 academic year. On a go-forward basis, the UPASS should be an optional program for ASEs. ii. TS and the University are working together to understand this outcome by consulting with the attorney general’s office. They will likely seek more clarifications from the arbitrator. 1. The arbitrator process is final unless there is, for example, a ruling in court that the arbitrator overreached in some way. d. Transportation Services’ opinion i. TS feels that students established this fee and expressed a clear intent when they did it. The intent of the students’ needs to be honored by preserving the universality of the program and fee. ii. Because TS feels the arbitrator’s findings are somewhat vague, the institution needs to explore how changes could be implemented.

1. TS feels that home departments for these ASEs would need to be the source of any rebate or credit associated with the fee. 2. It is in the best interested of the university and greatest keeping of the intent of students to preserve the integrity of this program and fee as well as the contract between ASEs and their employing departments. e. Question (Melanie Mayock): Would home departments be responsible for a rebate from this past year? i. It is TS’ position, not the University’s position, that any sort of waiver should be paid for by the ASE’s home department. f. Question (Melanie Mayock): Would the U-PASS become an opt-out fee? i. Josh Kavanagh said the arbitrator’s ruling is vague and TS needs more time with attorneys to fully understand it. g. Question (Bill Dow): Can we even technologically do opt-out in the ORCA system? i. Yes, the faculty and staff program is opt-in. However, there are many logistical challenges with trying to accomplish this. A student’s ASE status is not clearly defined in the University computer systems Transportation Services interacts with. In this, it is difficult to automatically identify and treat that population differently. ii. There will need to be more technical research about how to potentially execute this while preserving the integrity of the universal system. h. Question (Melanie Mayock): Aside from the AG’s office, TS and the University, who else is involved? i. Approximately 75 percent of President Young’s cabinet and a host of others are aware of or engaged in the issue, particularly when there is a proposal for the departments to pick it up. i. Comment (Rene Singleton): Nobody knows what the outcome of this will be. It could impact TS. This is a very large amount of money when talking about both fees. i. Josh Kavanagh said there are both forward-looking and backwardlooking components to any change. 1. To the extent that TS is able to technically identify anyone who had participated in the program or not. Any student who participated in the program (i.e. used their U-PASS on transit) could be expected to have accepted the fee. 2. If there’s a 100 percent rebate across the board it would total just above $750,000. a. This could be charged against the rate stabilization fund, discussed in the financial information at the last meeting. Depleting that fund would increase future UPASS costs for all students. j. Statement (Aaron Lykken): Student Fiscal Services’ department budgets don’t cover the U-PASS. i. Josh Kavanagh said that he would expect that process is very out of date if SFS doesn’t cover the U-PASS. That would harken back to the opt-out program. 1. This is a difficult ruling to try and reconcile and implement. Conceivably, a home department would not pay the fee

because it’s a fee on students by students. But the University has been ordered, effectively, to refund a fee that it has custodianship of for students, but that are not University dollars as common sense would dictate. a. This is precisely why TS and the University are seeking more advice on how to interpret and apply this ruling. k. Question (Bill Dow): What does the timeline for this look like? i. Josh Kavanagh said that to the best of his understanding the University is within 90 days of this ruling taking effect. l. Question (Melanie Mayock): So the earliest any changes would go into effect, the refunding of previous quarters aside, would be this fall quarter? i. Josh Kavanagh said that this is precisely the importance of continuing the Advisory Board’s meetings over the summer. m. Question (Rene Singleton): Have any Advisory Board members received feedback from students about this? i. Melanie Mayock said she had heard from students in the past who were upset about the fees, but hadn’t heard anything about the specific ruling yesterday. ii. Becky Edmonds said she has heard about some confusion from students about what this means going forward. 3. Second year budget forecast – Celeste Gilman a. The attached document was one that TS had promised at the last Advisory Board meeting. This looks at the projected student U-PASS budget for FY13. b. The forecast on revenue for this next year should hold as it is based on the most current revenue projections based on what TS has seen this last year. c. Similar to what has been presented to the Advisory Board in the past, the expenditures include top-level items, staff salaries and other contract services. Most of that is transit contract costs, which are set through next year. d. So, despite having a small deficit this year, it is projected that there will be a roughly $600,000 surplus at the end of FY13. i. Josh Kavanagh said that because of the forward-shifting of costs in the transit contract, that we had underperforming this year and will likely over perform next year, the student program is right on track and the rate stabilization fund will stay in good health. e. One problem with the comparison set-up in this document is that it compared different time periods. i. The FY12 projection used here, and presented at the last Advisory Board meeting, only accounts for 10 months of the program. The FY13 projection used here is for 12 months. 1. Alicia Halberg will highlight this in the document and minutes so that readers are not confused, perhaps mistakenly thinking that costs are increasing. f. Josh Kavanagh said that this really is a cause for happiness because it puts students in a better position when looking towards rate discussions with the transit agencies in the coming years. 4. Summer planning – Alicia Halberg

a. Although there was lackluster response on the Doodle poll, it looks like meetings over the summer will be on Tuesdays at 3:30 p.m. every other week. Meetings will begin on June 19. i. The group will commit to meetings every other week, but can cancel meetings as it sees fit. b. Bill Dow will look into the use of proxies over the summer. It looks like enough members will be around to meet quorum. c. Katie Bass will be the new U-PASS liaison, replacing Alicia Halberg. Alicia will be staying on at TS in another capacity. d. Celeste Gilman thanked the Advisory Board members for making the commitment to meet over the summer. 5. Fee name change update – Josh Kavanagh a. Charles Plummer and Josh Kavanagh met last Monday with an assistant AG. He said that the name proposed by the Advisory Board, “Student Transportation Fee” sounded like a different fee that would fall under a different statutory authority. i. Anything with “transportation” in it might fall under a different statute. ii. The assistant AG suggested that the name should remain the same because of this. There is a specific statute that authorizes transportation fees, rather than it being a voluntary fee on students. 1. If an institution imposes an institutional transportation fee that is mandatory upon students then it must also be mandatory on faculty and staff. a. At this point, that is not an option. b. Charles Plummer and Conor McLean strongly agreed that the name should therefore not be changed, though they’ve left it to the Advisory Board to decide if another name might work. i. Melanie Mayock agrees that they should just leave well-enough alone. ii. Becky Edmonds said that this opens up the door for something like “community access fee” which had been discussed at previous meetings. c. Rene Singleton said that because there are plenty of other issues to work on at this point in preparation for the renewal of the universal program, the Advisory Board should wait and revisit this in January 2013. 6. Advisory Board self-assessment – all members a. Josh Kavanagh commended the Advisory Board on its commitment to biweekly meetings, which is not how TS had originally conceived of the AB first functioning. The depth at which students have gone into the information and the active engagement of the Advisory Board in discussions has been tremendously valuable to TS and to students. b. Melanie Mayock said that there ought to be more communication between the representatives on the Advisory Board and their respective home bodies. i. Group communications will include more ASUW and GPSS executive members moving forward, at least including the respective presidents and vice presidents.

c. Rene Singleton brought up an issue that was discussed at the last meeting; that sometimes the group talks about documents that many Advisory Board members do not have on hand. i. Advisory Board members should make a commitment to bringing a laptop or binder with documents from previous meetings in order to stay better engaged. ii. TS will work on bringing a projector so that documents can be pulled up and easily referred to as a group. d. Rene Singleton said that the group had an assumption of being covered more by The Daily. It’s possible in the future to invite reporters to cover these meetings and issues. i. In this, agendas need to be provided in advance. Advisory Board meetings should be structured and organized more like ASUW Board of Directors or GPSS meetings. ii. Many Advisory Board members are good active listeners, but they also may benefit from taking more risks and sharing thoughts. Rene Singleton felts that there might be real differences in opinion that need to be discussed. e. Newer committee members felt that there should be some sort of training or conversation about what to do when a person comes in to complain or speak at a meeting. i. The Advisory Board only had people come to speak at Autumn Quarter 2011 meetings. f. Celeste Gilman said the upass.asuw.org website needs to be easier for students to find. i. Josh Kavanagh said that part of the U-PASS liaison’s staff support could be maintaining a website. 1. This website will be housed by TS and maintained by the new U-PASS liaison, Katie Bass.

Commuter Services Student U-PASS Financial Report Draft Fiscal Year 2013 Projection Compared with Year to Date As of April 30, 2012 Draft date: May 30, 2012

U-PASS: Student Projection FY13 (12 months)

U-PASS: Student Business Plan (10 months)

U-PASS: Student (10 months)

U-PASS: Student Difference (10 months)

Funding: State Appropriation Recharge 1 Revenue Transfer-In/Out - Other Total Funding

16,391,204 370,000 16,761,204

12,893,219 308,333 13,201,552

13,196,910 308,333 13,505,243

(303,691) (303,691)

Expenditure: Classified/Professional Salaries Professional Services Other Contract Services Staff Benefits Total Operating Expenses

155,789 15,931,278 52,208 16,139,275

127,615 13,075,858 40,296 13,243,769

96,025 13,063,658 24,718 13,184,402

31,590 12,200 15,577 59,367

-

-

Non-Operating Expenses University Overhead Interest Principal Total Non-Operating Expenses

-

-

-

-

621,929

(42,217)

320,841

(363,058)

6/30/11 Ending Balance5

2,650,970

2,650,970

2,650,970

-

2012 Balance6

2,600,310

2,608,753

2,971,811

(363,058)

Projected 6/30/13 Ending Balance

3,222,239

Surplus/(Deficit) before Adjustments4

-

Notes: 1. Deferred two months of Spring quarter Student U-PASS received in March ($2.4M) and fully recognized Summer 4. Transit agencies expenses averaged over four quarters 5. The cumulative 6/30/2011 fund balance for U-PASS is un-audited 6. Value in projection column is a projection of the balance on 6/30/2012. Values in other columns are YTD for April 2012

We were originally expecting a growth in fund balance of about $471,000 in the FY12 when the $76 per student per quarter rate was proposed. The approximate $42,000 reduction in fund balance is the result of less than expected City Parking Tax relief, less than 100% student participation, and staffing costs that were not included in the budget. History of Business Plan Updates: 4/2012 A portion of S&A's salaries and benefits were included in the operational budget but not in the Business Plan 4/2012 Transit contract of 10/11 to 9/12 was not finalized until late summer 2011 so revised amounts were not in the Bus

Business Plan Correction Notes: A.  U‐PASS Student Expenses (all but Transit costs and wages/benefits): Business Plan column was taking non‐transit  B.  U‐PASS Staff/Faculty Expenses (all but Transit costs and wages/benefits): Business Plan column was taking non‐ C.  Active Transportation Expenses: Business Plan column was matching U‐PASS budget file total ($530,050), now  matching Business plan including Sales & Admin staffing costs ($848,177); ratio percentage = 152.565% I:\groups\fac\trans\upass\A New File System\U-PASS\Advisory Board\Logistics\Minutes\2012-06-01\DRAFT Student U-PASS Financial 6/12/2012 Projection FY13 for Student Advisory Board Meeting June 2012