PARKING MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION OPTIONS

CU ANSCHUTZ MEDICAL CAMPUS MASTER PLAN PARKING MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION OPTIONS 23-7340.01

2

PROJECT DESCRIPTION The University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus (“CU Anschutz”) is comprised of three major hospitals – Children’s Hospital Colorado (“CHC”), University of Colorado Hospital (“UCH”), and the future VA Hospital. In addition, the campus includes the University of Colorado medical school and research campus, and a number of other ownership groups such as University Physicians Inc (“UPI”).

Figure 1: CU Anschutz Medical Campus Ownership Groups

Source: Site-Wide Coordinated Master Plan | Phase I | AndersonMasonDaleArchitects


3

Figure 2: Existing CU Anschutz Medical Campus Parking Facilities

Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2012


4

Previously, the various entities on the campus were primarily concerned with developing their own parking resources and meeting their own parking needs on each individual site. For example, UCH has recently constructed a new visitor parking garage on their campus and is in the process of constructing a secondary employee garage. Concurrently, the Denver Children’s Hospital also completed two new garages for their employees on the northeast corner of their site. To our knowledge, no discussions were held as to the possibility of developing one larger parking garage jointly to serve as employees for both UCH and CHC. Similarly, parking rates and parking policies are currently being set separately by the individual campuses. These policies cover a range of options including pay parking with gated controls (at Children’s Hospital), to free parking with gated controls (being planned for VA), to free parking without gates or controls at some of the more periphery sites. FUTURE PARKING DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS Several tables were provided previously to the planning team to assess the possible parking impacts for a planned infill development program for the CU academic campus. Based on the analysis of the previously proposed program (see Attachment A), a total of roughly 1,560 net new parking spaces were recommended for the campus, plus replacement of any displaced lots, assuming that each new land use would have a “zero net impact” on the existing parking system. The initial tables also assumed minimal impact from the planned new light rail station which is expected to be added to the north end of campus by 2015. Reducing the number of added parking spaces recommended for the campus is a possibility, depending on how much of a “shared parking” approach the various campus entities are planning to adopt. Also, certain parking management tools, such as pay parking can be leveraged to improve the efficiency with which existing lots/garages are used, and also to incentivize alternatives such as off-site parking and transit usage in lieu of on-campus parking. DECISION TREE For discussion purposes, the following page shows a possible “decision tree” that may result in a reduced need for new parking development on the campus.


5

Figure 3: Parking Development Decision Tree

Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2012

CU Anschutz - Parking Development

Options

No Policy Changes Site-Wide Transportation

Mgmt. Association

Site-Wide Parking Authority

Each entity continues to manage parking independently of other entities Existing hospitals maintain surplus capacity in their own garages to allow for future growth Future garage development is done separately for each site Off-site parking and shared-use agreements may occur naturally as each entity attempts to control its future parking development costs However, little coordinated effort exists for a campus-wide circulator or Transportation Demand Management measures Some employees and students opt to utilize transit out of convenience and/or price sensitivity New proposed development requires 1,560 new spaces and replacement of any displaced surface parking lots

The campus self-operates its parking but under the structure of a single Transportation Management Authority. Alternatively, a third-party parking operator is brought in to manage all on-campus lots/garages and transit systems under the direction of the TMA. User groups associated with each hospital or campus still have first priority for permits in the most convenient existing employee lots and garages However, permit parking is priced consistently between all entities on the site while off-campus and remote parking options are discounted; permit allocations and enforcement are handled by the site-wide operator Hospitals can continue to self-operate visitor and valet parking (though these lots should be controlled to reduce employee impact); or can opt out of self-operation Excess permit parking capacity in existing garages is made available to other student/employee user groups Net operating revenues (less expenses) are returned to the entity owning each garage on a pro-rated scale All entities on the site share costs associated with a parking circulator / shuttle program

A site-wide parking authority is established with a similar structure as described under the site-wide TMA However, under the parking authority, existing parking assets would be leased or purchased directly from the various campus entities Future parking infrastructure development would be funded and directed by the authority rather than by individual entitles. Under this scenario or the “site-wide TMA” only minimal new parking would need to be added over the short-term; though long-term additional garages may be needed to support additional growth


6

SELF-OPERATION VERSUS CONSOLIDATED MANAGEMENT Campus parking represents a considerable allocation of capital, (potentially) generates significant revenue, requires frequent customer service contact, and creates wide-ranging responsibilities for the institutional parking owners within the Master Plan area(s). As part of their due diligence with regard to the performance of these responsibilities, the various ownership entities should consider whether each institution should continue to independently self-operate their parking facilities, as is currently the case, or consolidate the management of all parking operations through a Transportation Management Association (TMA), or even through an outside entity. The consolidation of parking system management may be an attractive option for the following reasons:

• Consolidated parking management creates opportunities to better meet peak demand by sharing parking resources and more efficiently distributing the available parking supply.

• Consolidated parking management is more cost effective than the current model of individual institutional management. A consolidated operation reduces duplication, gains efficiencies through the management of a larger trained labor pool and extends uniform practices to parking operations.

• Consolidated parking management frees up personnel and resources that can be redirected to programs that reduce parking demand. These efforts include the promotion of transit, ride sharing, biking, and other Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs and techniques.

• Consolidated parking management creates opportunities to improve security and provide more uniform enforcement.

• Consolidated parking management may offer an opportunity to distribute industry expertise throughout the parking system.

• Consolidated parking management leads to opportunities to develop new parking facilities.

• Improved parking conditions will help to reduce a perceived competitive advantage of other Denver-area health care alternatives.

Some of the potential challenges associated with the consolidation of the parking system may include the follow:

• Potential labor-relations issues as some parking department jobs (at the various campus) may become redundant

• Individual institutions may lose some operational control over ability to set parking pricing and policies (such as validations, free visitor parking, etc.) and may feel a loss of institutional identity

o Note that parking can still be subsidized for some employee groups; however, most policies would need to be uniform for all participating entities

• An appropriate compensation and revenue sharing structure would need to be worked out between the various entities as some have already invested heavily in parking infrastructure (new garages, etc.)

• Other issues (to be discussed with the task force)??


7

ORGANIZATIONAL OPTIONS Currently, most parking operations are maintained by each campus institution, with the aim of benefiting that individual institution. Many institutions separate transportation and parking functions from other infrastructure maintenance, planning, or property management departments by creating an entity devoted solely to parking issues. The primary advantage is to emphasize the importance of parking issues to employees and patrons, and to efficiently allocate resources. This results in less conflict of interest and more focus on issues, with fewer layers between the parking management and executive management (chief executive officer and/or the chief operating officer). A frequent and defining goal of parking management is that it should generate sufficient revenue to cover its operating expenses. However, large cost items such as debt service, reserve funds and sinking funds for maintenance and replacement may be covered out of other departmental budgets. If the various campus-wide entities proceed with the consolidation of parking operations, the following organizational options are examined as the most likely models. JOINT VENTURE OR PARTNERSHIP The simplest cooperative operating entity is a joint venture company or partnership, where each institution benefits proportionately and where expenses are equitably shared. In a joint venture or strategic alliance, businesses come together to share knowledge, markets, and economic benefits. Even if each institution retains control over their own fees and policies, parking operations can be consolidated and centrally managed. As revenue would be passed through to the partners, all partners would bear responsibility for costs and debts incurred. The partnership agreement would deal with issues of formation, profit and expense sharing arrangements, salaries, employee taxes, unemployment insurance, workman’s compensation insurance, banking arrangements, changes of partners, liquidation, and responsibilities of partners. Items such as business name, licenses, trademarks, copyrights, patents and designs would be registered by the joint venture or partnership. Budgeted expenses include the operating costs associated with ongoing parking operations. This may include the labor costs associated with maintenance, security, parking enforcement, revenue collection, management, and administration. Other operating costs may include utilities, supplies, and equipment. A joint venture company or partnership would provide a financial structure that consolidates costs and benefits under its control. Its main purpose is to establish a parking operating budget, to collect parking revenues, and to pool parking expenses. The operating budget is typically funded by a stream of transfers collected from the partners. A joint venture company or partnership can be used to manage joint operations and/or the development of new parking project capital improvements as joint ventures. Although revenues generated by a new structured parking facility may not be sufficient to fund both the operating expenses and debt service of that particular improvement, revenues from other facilities and partnership contributions may be pooled together. This pool must be sufficient to guarantee the solvency of the joint venture or partnership. The lifespan of a parking structure can often range from 30 to 50 years, or more. However, because the development costs for such a structure are capitalized over a 20 to 30-year period, there is significant useful


8

life remaining after all debt is retired. This remaining life means that revenues may still be generated by this debt-free facility and that these revenues may be available to offset any new debt service payments that are required to fund new parking projects. These resources may then be used to fund parking project capital improvements. CITY PARKING DEPARTMENT Extending the role of the City of Aurora to contract-manage some or all of the parking operations for the Anschutz Medical Campus is an alternative. The City of Aurora does not currently own or operate pay parking. Therefore, this option would require a newly formed venture between the campus and the local municipality. The City would likely maintain operational control over street parking (at the minimum), but could also be contracted to take over management of existing and future garages. Many successful municipalities manage parking operations through an auxiliary enterprise fund. An auxiliary enterprise fund is separate from the municipality’s general fund. An auxiliary enterprise fund’s main purpose is to preserve parking revenues, establish a parking operating budget, and segregate parking expenses. These operating budgets include a stream of revenues collected from a variety of sources, including the following:

• Monthly leases or permit fees • Transient revenues • Parking meter revenues • Reserved parking spaces • Transferred funds • Parking violation revenues (sometimes)

An enterprise fund provides a financial structure that consolidates those costs and benefits that it controls, which in turn, defines responsibility and accountability. By definition, an auxiliary enterprise fund should be self-sustaining. This means that the auxiliary enterprise fund must generate a revenue stream that is sufficient to cover ongoing operating expenses and outstanding debt service obligations to ensure the solvency of the auxiliary enterprise. Deficits must be guaranteed by transfers. Excess revenues may be used to fund parking project capital improvements. Budgeted expenses include the operating costs associated with ongoing parking operations. This may include the labor costs associated with maintenance, security, on-street and off-street parking enforcement, revenue collection, management, and administration. Other operating costs may include utilities, supplies, and equipment. There are many parking system auxiliary enterprise funds in operation throughout the U.S. Following are some of these funds:

Municipalities • Cedar Rapids, Iowa • Lincoln, Nebraska • Detroit, Michigan • Tampa, Florida • Miami, Florida • Denver, Colorado


9

An Auxiliary Enterprise Fund may be administered through the existing municipal governmental structure. As such, an enterprise fund imposes some discipline over the overall activity. However, the Auxiliary Enterprise Fund also may be managed through the creation of a new parking department or parking authority. The role of such a city parking department or parking authority varies from that of parking asset manager who delegates or contracts management of actual day to day parking operations, to that of actually operating the parking system in addition to the role of asset manager. Advantages: Control is provided by an experienced City parking administration. Minimal increase in

administrative complexity. Does not create new political entities.

Possible to quickly acquire expertise by transferring employees from other City departments.

Enterprise fund separates parking revenues from general fund activities.

City bonding capacity can be used to issue development bonds.

Disadvantages: Parking can become bureaucratic and not receive the needed attention.

New positions are created under civil service regulations, which are subject to political pressure.

Parking policy is more likely to fall within the purview of staff and elected officials.

Civil service rules and budgeting process can be cumbersome and time consuming.

Financing for parking facilities must compete with other municipal projects if general obligation bonds are requested.

BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT / PARKING TAX DISTRICT Some municipalities and county governments use business improvement districts (“BIDs”) and parking tax districts as a means to generate income to fund parking facility capital improvements and operating expenses. Both business improvement districts and parking tax districts can be used to finance the acquisition of land; the construction, operation, and maintenance of surface parking lots and parking structures. There are over 1,200 BIDs in the U.S. BIDs, which are most often formed at the request of their member businesses, typically address a wide variety of issues, not all related to parking, such as marketing, transit, beautification, signage, lighting, parking, street and public space maintenance, security; as well as to provide information and assistance. The collection of assessments tends to be applied uniformly on a square foot, gross receipts, or assessed value basis because benefits are universally recognized by all property owners. For example, The Bayside Business Improvement District, located in Santa Monica, California, is an example of a BID. This BID was established in 1986 and has allowed the BID to secure the bonded indebtedness associated with various parking, roadway and signage improvements in 1989. It has three zones, each with its own tax rate. Tax bills appear on property owner’s tax bills and the Treasurer administers the fund. At the same time this BID was created, an ordinance was passed requiring a parking development fee that created a fund for additional parking improvements.


10

A parking tax district may or may not be a viable option for the CU Anschutz Medical Campus, but might be more appropriate when considering potential future commercial development on the FRA property or other adjacent sites. NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION A significant difference between contracting with a TMA of City parking division and a Non-profit Organization is that the NPO may have a broader perspective on issues other than parking. Both may be concerned with supporting and encouraging the economic vitality of an activity center, but the NPO may have a more balanced approach because it may manage more elements, but at the same time, is more focused on a particular area. In either case, if parking is directed by an NPO, expenses must be guaranteed by the parking asset owners. In this model, transfers and increases in future parking revenue could also fund future parking improvements. Advantages: Parking functions may be delegated to an entity with a broader perspective than just to

deliver parking.

Can make decisions and implement programs quickly.

Can maintain some political independence while also working closely with the asset owners and the City.

Easy to create new positions, set salary scales independently, and initiate rewards based on merit.

Disadvantages: Parking system must be self-supporting, as transfers to cover deficits are problematic.

Parking functions may be subjugated by other issues such as economic development.

The ability to issue bonds, while possible, may be more difficult and complex. PARKING AUTHORITY Parking authorities offer similar advantages to those gained through the creation of auxiliary enterprise funds. One similarity is that parking authorities should be self-supporting, meaning they generate operating revenues sufficient to cover both operating expenses and the debt service associated with any capital improvements. Parking authorities have many of the same responsibilities as a municipal parking and transportation department. Following are some of the functions and responsibilities of a parking authority:

To hire and compensate staff and manage parking facilities. To set parking rates and collect revenues from authority-owned facilities. To establish and manage a budget. To acquire property through negotiations and, if necessary, through eminent domain. To acquire existing parking facilities. To contract with third parties for services and the sale of real property. To sue and be sued. To fund parking facility capital improvements.


11

To design, construct, and renovate parking facilities. To demolish and rebuild parking facilities. To develop and implement master plans for municipal parking. To define and implement parking management strategies aimed at improving traffic flow and parking

conditions. To issue and retire debt.

To create a parking authority, first, enabling legislation must be in place legalizing the formation. Many states have enacted enabling legislation to allow for the creation of a parking authority. Some states have legalized the formation of a parking authority in any city, regardless of size. Other states permit the establishment of a parking authority only in specific classes of cities. Following are some states that have parking authorities: Alabama, Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. Once the parking authority is created, most laws provide for the municipality’s mayor to appoint board members (in this case, the various Anschutz Campus entities would appoint a board). The Board of Directors then governs a parking authority. Parking authorities have several characteristics that distinguish them from municipal parking departments or NPOs, including the following:

Where parking authorities are empowered to issue their own debt, that debt may or may not count toward the debt capacity of the municipality.

Parking authorities can take action independently and without approval of local government. Following are some of the most significant advantages and disadvantages of a parking authority:

Advantages: Provides a structure with a sole focus on parking-related issues.

Significantly reduces administrative pressures compared to city parking department.

Not subject to annual budget considerations of city government or politics.

Can issue own debt.

Can accomplish unpopular goals by isolating some decisions.

Disadvantages: Parking system should be self-supporting, as

transfers to cover deficits are problematic.

Creates a new governmental agency with an independent Board of Directors.


12

Redundant costs of management and administration.

May face higher borrowing interest rates and costs than a city issuing general obligation bonds.

Authority may have some powers that are beyond the immediate control of the citizens.

May still encumber the full faith and credit of the City in the calculations of some underwriters.

Parking Authorities are regionally concentrated as follows:

Region Number Midwest 20 Southwest 6 West 28 New England 14 Mid-Atlantic 140 South 43 Total 251

The greatest numbers of parking authorities are found in:

State Number Pennsylvania 54 New Jersey 43 New York 35 California 23 Virginia 17

New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania are the states with the greatest number of parking authorities. Only approximately 24% of these authorities were created since 1980, and approximately 19 parking authorities have been dissolved over the same period. Within the Ohio/Kentucky/Indiana region, only four parking authorities are known to exist.

State Authority Ohio Downtown Toledo Parking Authority Parking Authority of Westerville Kentucky Parking Authority of River City Parking Authority of Danville Indiana None

Records indicate that a Mt. Adams Parking Authority was created in 1982, but was dissolved in 1987.


13

Most parking authorities were created between 1947 and 1972. Most were created in very congested areas to accomplish politically unpopular tasks such as the condemnation of land for parking, the issuance of bonds outside of the borrowing capacity of local government and, sometimes, patronage. The creation of a parking authority allows local elected officials to distance themselves from these activities, but also creates independent boards that may be difficult to control and may be politically challenging. The use of parking authorities have declined since that era in part because of changes in municipal bonding underwriting standards and other disadvantages described above, and because similar results can be accomplished through the issuance of tax-exempt project revenue bonds and the use of less complex organizational models such as municipal parking departments, development corporations, special improvement districts, business improvement districts, neighborhood improvement districts, and TIF districts. P3 – PUBLIC / PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP Some campus have recently been pursuing options to exit the parking business altogether and monetize their parking assets. This is sometimes referred to as a Public-Private Partnership (P3) WHAT WORKS BEST FOR CAMPUS? The “As Is” or no-change solution remains a rational choice, but it is expensive and inefficient. A true Parking Authority duplicates municipal authority by creating an independent board. Such a board also has political implications. The creation of a joint venture/partnership may be difficult because of the competing interests or various campus organizations. But, the maximum benefits accrue from a joint venture/partnership for the following reasons:

1. The partners maintain the most control over policies and fees, leaving each the ability to set prices and allocations, while sharing a common labor pool and costs of operation.

2. The partners can adopt uniform standards regarding operating procedures, the condition of facilities, standardizing of parking access and revenue control system (PARCS), and common software.

3. The partners can brand the operation in name, through signage and by common web access.


14

THE TDM COMPONENT WHAT IS TDM? Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is a general term for strategies that result in more efficient use of transportation (parking and transit) resources or simply reducing the use of single occupancy automobiles. One of the primary goals of this study is to examine the relationship of pricing to parking demand on the campus. Commuter Financial Incentives refers to specific approaches designed to reduce parking demand by encouraging commuting by alternative modes or by discouraging single occupant vehicle (SOV) commuting. Within the parking and transportation industries, such programs are known as Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs. TDM programs reduce parking demand. Parking is a very high cost amenity. However, in the competitive health care market, most institutional parking is provided for free or at very subsidized rates. Subsidized parking increases the demand for parking! While popular with parkers, low parking fees provide the greatest incentive to SOV commuting, and provide a disincentive to use the alternatives to SOV commuting and parking. This is because subsidized parking subsidizes SOV commuting, and increases parking demand by making high value parking spaces more affordable to a larger customer base. This is in conflict with the management objective of reducing parking demand. In our capitalistic society, scarce resources are generally and most efficiently allocated by price. When other systems are employed, the system becomes less efficient and some parkers will be ill served. Some parking systems use inefficient methods to artificially lower prices for some users. These less efficient methods of distributing parking include waiting lists, lotteries, seniority, department allocations, etc. These methods create inefficiency by not pricing parking according to what it is worth. These methods actually increase the demand for parking by making parking affordable to a larger pool of customers. THE “TRUE COST” OF PARKING TDM methods work best when parking fees to the parker reflect the “True Cost” of parking. In a low parking fee environment, the institution subsidizes the entire parking system, because the fees charged do not reflect the true cost of parking. The following table cross-tabulates project cost per space versus annual operating cost per space to show the monthly revenue required per space to break even (rounded to the nearest $10).


15

Table 1: Monthly Revenue per Parking Space Needed to Break Even

Project Annual Operating Cost per Space

Cost/Space $150 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800$1,000 $20 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $70$1,500 $20 $30 $40 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80$2,000 $30 $30 $40 $50 $60 $60 $70 $80$3,000 $30 $40 $50 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90$6,000 $50 $60 $70 $70 $80 $90 $100 $110$8,000 $70 $70 $80 $90 $100 $100 $110 $120$9,000 $70 $80 $90 $90 $100 $110 $120 $130

$10,000 $80 $80 $90 $100 $110 $120 $130 $130$11,000 $90 $90 $100 $110 $120 $120 $130 $140$12,000 $90 $100 $110 $110 $120 $130 $140 $150$13,000 $100 $100 $110 $120 $130 $140 $150 $150$14,000 $110 $110 $120 $130 $140 $140 $150 $160$15,000 $110 $120 $130 $130 $140 $150 $160 $170$20,000 $150 $150 $160 $170 $180 $180 $190 $200

Rate 5% Amort. Period 20 Years Without including the cost of land in the cost of the parking facility, an unattended structure with a $10,000 per space project cost (at 5%, 20 yr. amortization schedule) and $200/space per year in operating expenses will require revenue of $80/space per month ($960 per year) to break even. This is typical of the fee that must be charged for employee parking in an unattended facility at an institution. However, if the structure is attended and the annual cost to operate is $600, the annual cost to own and operate is closer to $120/space/month ($1,440 per year). The comparable project cost of $3,000/space and $150/space per year to own and operate an unattended surface parking lot results in a break-even point of $30/space per month ($360 per year). If a parking lot is attended, operating costs could shoot up to $400/space per year, increasing the breakeven point to $50/space/month ($600 per year). Those institutions charging parkers $10/month or less for surface parking are not even charging enough to recover costs of owning and operating surface parking, resulting in significant "sticker shock" when trying to figure out how to pay for structured, attended parking that can cost about $130/month, or more, just to break even. Structured parking isn’t cheap. It commonly requires $100 to $150 per space in revenue per month to recover the capital and operating costs of building an above-grade structure on land already owned. Very few situations allow that cost to be charged to visitors, much less employees and students; therefore parking development usually is subsidized by other funding sources. The typical route taken by most universities is to increase student facilities fees to further subsidize parking. The key elements to reducing parking demand are rational pricing and choice. To successfully promote a TDM program, it is very important to price parking at market value, and introduce a combination of incentives that restore those economic factors that promote the rational choice of commuting alternatives to SOV driving/parking. These methods include carpooling, vanpools, telecommuting, mass transit/bus incentives, and cash out programs.


16

To derive the most benefit from implementing TDM strategies, it is recommended that the major employers in the The campus area institute the following:

• Reduce the promotion of free parking as an employment incentive.

• In an effort to reintroduce some economic decision process on the part of employees, some meaningful percentage of parking cost should be included in employee flex plans.

• It is not necessary to change everyone’s behavior. The change in choices of only a few parkers makes a significant difference in the number of new parking spaces that will be needed in the future.

Demand elasticity for parking is very situational, reflecting the cost of alternative modes, commuting distances, and pricing of competitive modes. Thus, the following methods are highly recommended to support the TDM effort. Ridesharing. The cost to carpool participants can be reduced in a number of ways. For example, a carpool permit can be offered at the same price as a regular permit, while allowing carpool members to share the cost, thus reducing their individual obligation toward parking expenses. A carpool permit might also be offered at low or no cost, with the stipulation that participants cannot purchase any other type of permit. Finally, a few programs at institutions with excessive parking cost, high parking demand, and little parking availability offer discounts, credits, and/or rebates based on the number of people in a carpool, the number of days per week a carpool arrives intact, or the length of time an individual has been carpooling. Almost universally, students living on campus are not eligible to participate in carpool programs. Allowing people who live within a defined area nearby or surrounding a destination may encourage people to drive as a carpool rather than to use another feasible alternative such as transit, bicycling, or walking. Occasional use permit. This allow members of a carpool program to park on campus as a SOV for a certain number of days per year, most commonly 1 per month or 12 per year. Some programs give participants 12 occasional use permits up front and then allow them to purchase up to a certain number more through the course of a year. Guaranteed or Emergency Ride Home. Emergency ride programs are useful in persuading new participants to join a rideshare program by reducing a potential objection that by ridesharing they will no longer be able to get home if ill, if a child is sick, if unexpected overtime is necessary at work, etc. While preferential parking, occasional use permits, ride matching, and guaranteed or emergency ride home programs are the most common incentives offered as part of carpool programs today, some universities offer additional incentives to promote ridesharing:

• Opportunity to enter into prize drawings on each day the carpool arrives intact is offered at Brock University.

• Commuter rewards of $1 every day a commuter carpools and a $25 recruitment bonus for recruiting new participants are offered at Cal State Fullerton.

• Up to $160 per person of “Carpool Cash” can be applied toward the permit cost at Stanford University. Flex Plan With Cash-Out Option. Due to changes in tax law, parking allowances to cover parking or alternative commuting costs may be included within or structured as a “flex plan” (similar to insurance


17

“cafeteria” flex plans), and may include financial payment to employees. Employees can use pre-tax money to pay for a parking space or for another travel mode. Flex plans allow the university to price parking at a universal price, yet shape the cafeteria allowance to subsidize some parking rates to different user groups at different rates. However, parking permit prices should be uniform in presentation, and the cost of subsidy would be absorbed by the unit through the flex plan allowance. Under current tax law, Parking Cash Out is a viable option. Parking Cash Out means that commuters who are offered subsidized parking are also offered the cash equivalent if they use alternative travel modes. Cash benefits are taxable, but transit benefits are not. Parking Cash Out is a simple, effective, and powerful method of reducing parking demand by increasing commuter choice and increasing utilization of the commuting alternatives. It is best offered through an overall program of managed employee parking benefits. Parking Cash Out is now more attractive as a benefit option because changes in the Federal tax code since 1999 have expanded its applicability. It is popular with both employees and employers because it serves as an employee benefit and it has the potential to reduce parking demand. In essence, Parking Cash Out is an employee transportation benefit that offers employees the option of giving up their parking rights in exchange for its equivalent monetary value. For example, if the cost of a parking permit is $66 per month, under a cash-out program the institution could also offer the choice of a cash payment to employees who choose to not park. Because offering such a choice adds a strong monetary incentive not to drive, parking cash out can result in substantial reductions in parking demand. It also improves equity among workers by offering equal benefits to parkers and non-parkers. The key element is choice. Parking Cash Out gives employees the choice to forgo their parking space, pocket some of their entire now-unhidden parking subsidy, and commute using alternate modes. By being given an explicit choice whether or not to spend money on parking, drivers are made aware of the real value of their parking space. This simple act of uncovering the true value of parking and offering a choice can significantly reduce SOV commuting and parking demand. The elegance of Parking Cash Out is that, properly implemented, it can benefit everyone. Most importantly, Parking Cash Out provides additional motivation for employees to choose to use the commuting alternatives. Parking Cash Out offers employees the option of receiving taxable cash (up to $175 in value) in lieu of any parking subsidy offered. In some cases, employers offer their employees the cash value of a rented parking space in lieu of the space itself. Employees may refuse the cash and keep the tax-free parking subsidy or accept tax-free transit or vanpooling benefits (up to $65 worth) in its place--with any balance in taxable cash. If an employee accepts the cash option, the cash is subject to income taxes for that employee. However, both parties ultimately benefit from implementing parking cash-out – employees' income rises, while employers' business expenses decrease from not having to subsidize or build as much parking. Program Qualifications:

• To qualify, employees must elect to have their parking permit or bus pass placed on payroll deduction.


18

• Eligible permit expense includes all annual garage and surface lot permits, motorcycle permits, monthly parking permits and alternative transportation permits.

• Employees who purchase two types of permits for themselves may include both permits as pre-tax subject to the IRS limitation of $175 per month.

• Employees must elect to have their parking permit on payroll deduction to obtain the pre-tax benefit and cannot utilize payroll deduction or receive the pre-tax benefit for other family members’ permits or bus passes.

• Employees who purchase both a permit and a bus pass may include both items as pre-tax subject to the IRS limitation of $175/month for the permit and $65/month for the bus pass.

• If the employee must replace a lost or stolen permit or bus pass, the replacement fee is considered a cost of parking or transit expense and will be eligible for the pre-tax benefit if the replacement fee is processed through payroll deduction and does not exceed the monthly maximum.

• Eligible transit expenses include all semester, academic, and annual bus passes sold through the Department.

• Visitor, football, basketball, and other special event permits do not qualify.

• The maximum pre-tax benefit allowed to an employee is as follows: $65 per month for bus passes $175 per month for permits

• Refunds on parking permits or bus passes are considered taxable to the employee if the permit was originally purchased on a pre-tax basis.

• Citations are not eligible for pre-tax treatment. Free emergency ride home services encourage employees to use alternative transportation programs. Such programs give employees the ability to get home or to a daycare if an emergency arises. Provide for Staggered Work Shifts. The traffic operational problems in the The campus area are exacerbated by the large number of hospital employees that arrive and depart during a short period of time at shift changes. This problem is particularly evident around 3:00 in the afternoon and results in almost gridlock conditions in some areas. Staggering work shifts could be done on a departmental basis. Providing a shift stagger over an hour would tend to spread out the peak traffic on the streets and reduce peak congestion. With an hour stagger, some departments would change shifts at 2:30, some at 2:45, and some at 3:00, 3:15, and 3:30 pm. PARKING FEES Parking should be priced appropriately. Parking fees do vary from institution to institution to meet specific needs and are expected to do so in the future, but free parking does not serve to balance demand with a scarce and expensive resource, and is judged to not be appropriate for The campus.

ATTACHMENT A: ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED BUILD-OUT DATA

Attachments

ANSCHUTZ MEDICAL CAMPUS MASTER PLAN: PARKING DEMAND CALCULATIONS

Table 1: Parking Needs for Education (Students and Employees)Based on projected populations rather than build-out square footage

Population Current Projected Growth (1)

Future Delta Estimated Current Need

Estimated Future Need

Recommended Parking Added

Note

UCD Faculty / Staff 2022 Projections

Faculty FTE's 5,157 21% 6,228 1,071 0.20 /FTE 1,031 1,246 215 Per FTE Added

Staff FTE's 2,596 19% 3,095 499 0.70 /FTE 1,817 2,167 350 Per FTE Added

Resident FTE's 1,010 25% 1,263 253 0.70 /FTE 707 884 177 Per FTE Added

Sub-Total: 3,555 4,297 742

Student Enrollment (3)

Commuter Students 3,222 26% 4,296 1,074 0.40 /student 1,289 1,718 429 Students that live off-campus

Remote Students / other visitors 907 20% 1,086 179 0.10 /student 91 109 18 Students that take classes on-line and may visit campus on occasion

Total: 4,935 6,124 1,189

Table 2: Parking Needs for Clinical (Patients and Visitors)Based on projected populations rather than build-out square footage

Population Current Projected Growth (1)

Future Delta Estimated Current Need

Estimated Future Need


Note

Clinical Data Summary (annual visits)

School of Dental Medicine 65,000 42% 92,000 27,000 1.60 /1K annual visits

104 147 43 *Ratios based on available parking occupancy data for current patient visits

School of Medicine 15,430 24% 19,105 3,675 1.60 /1K annual visits

25 31 6

College of Nursing 17,394 64% 28,584 11,190 1.60 /1K annual visits

28 46 18

School of Pharmacy 200 200% 600 400 1.60 /1K annual visits

0 1 1

School of Public Health 4,220 30% 5,486 1,266 1.60 /1K annual visits

7 9 2

Total: 164 234 70

Table 3: Possible Frustrated Demand Possible existing campus parking demand that is not accommodated at a peak hour due to parking shortages

Existing Supply Projected Current Need


Note

4,799 5,099 300

Table 4: Total Parking Recommended based on 10-Year Growth Projections

Existing Supply Projected Future Need


Note

4,799 6,358 1,559

1. Current population data and 10-year growth projections provided by University of Colorado AMC

2. Parking Demand Ratios are established based on the following sources:

- For faculty/staff/and Resident FTE's: Past studies completed at major Universities with a teaching Hospital component (Kansas University Medical Center; Texas Tech University Medical Center; Loyola University Medical School; Medical University of South Carolina; Creighton University Medical Center; Hanover Medical University (Germany); University of Colorado Hospital)

- For Student Permits and frustrated demand calculations: Peak parking demand counts provided by AMC for February 2012

- For patient Visits for clinical space: estimated patient visits per day; ULI/ITE recommendations for stand-alone MOB's

Recommend Parking Ratio (2)

Recommend Parking Ratio (2)

3. Note that some students may opt to purchase a monthly parking pass if they are on campus frequently; however, others may visit campus less frequently and are currently parking in visitor parking lots and paying the hourly rate.

PARKING MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION OPTIONS

Documents

Transcript of PARKING MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION OPTIONS