ACT Members Endorse Raising Parking Permit Prices on Sliding Scale

The proposal, which, if approved, would not go into effect until the next academic year, suggests raising the price of parking permits based on salary.

Students and employees earning less than $50,000 a year would see an annual price increase of up to 5 percent.

Employees earning between $50,000 and $100,000 would pay up to a 10 percent annual increase.

All employees with salaries of more than $100,000 would pay an annual price increase of up to 20 percent.

The proposal will be discussed at ACT's Wednesday meeting, although Dean Bresciani, interim vice chancellor for student affairs and an ACT member, said the committee is almost at closure on the issue.

Faculty Council Chairwoman and ACT member Sue Estroff said the plan would have those people who can better afford it pay higher rates for parking permits. "We are trying to cushion the people who make so little," she said. "The whole rationale was to redistribute the burden to people who can better afford it.

"We want to do something substantial and more long-lasting that will actually ease the burden (on the low-paid staff)," she said.

Right now, faculty and staff have 11,116 parking spaces allotted to them on campus and students have 3,521. Although the brunt of the price increases would fall on high-paid faculty, ACT members have said it is the best option so far.

"It's the best compromise solution the committee could come up with," Bresciani said. "Both our faculty and our staff are underpaid, so in that sense its equally unfair to everyone."

The plan is an attempt to raise funding to eliminate a Department of Public Safety budget shortfall.

Last year, the Transportation and Parking Advisory Committee recommended a night parking plan to solve the budget crisis, but it was rejected by the UNC Board of Trustees. ACT replaced TPAC this year.

In addition to expenditures for maintenance of decks and the need for more remote parking, the University has been forced to turn over parking violation fines to local schools pending the appeal of a lawsuit.

"We are spending money to enforce parking but not getting the money back," Bresciani said.

He said a demand-based plan, one of the most common plans on campuses, was another option considered. In this plan the most popular places to park would charge the highest rates. "Those people with the most money would get the best parking," Bresciani said.

The committee decided against this proposal because it did not fit the University's commitment to keeping prices reasonable for everyone, Bresciani said. "It was not reflective of the priorities of the University community."

Despite recent permit price increases, permit rates at UNC are still below market value, ACT officials contend.

The problem is not just at UNC, Estroff said. She said she recently has spoken to officials at other universities who are facing the same issues.

"It's a perennial campus problem," Estroff said.

She said that if the proposal is accepted, its effectiveness will be evaluated as it progresses. "This is a trial. If it gets out of reach even for the people who can afford increases, we'll rethink it."

The plan is indicative of the University's commitment to equity, Estroff said. "It's very simple," she said. "It's about fairness. It's about community. It's about helping."

ACT is charged with devising a five-year parking plan for UNC and should have a formal recommendation for the University vice chancellors by the end of the semester.

The University Editor can be reached at udesk@unc.edu.