Dear Member,
We write to make sure you hear directly from us as to why no agreement about parking fees has been reached. As you know, a coalition of the Faculty, Classified Staff, Professional Staff and Graduate Employee unions has been in negotiations over transportation and parking fees over the past three years. The failure to reach an agreement, we believe, is due to the campus administration’s insistence on treating those of us who drive to campus solely as a source of revenue, without consideration to the harmful impacts that ever-increasing parking fees has on our community and institution.
First, let’s be clear on the facts. Individuals who park on campus collectively pay over $6 million annually in parking fees. The vast majority of this — $3.8 million in 2025 – is paid at the “cash” rate (rather than through a discounted pass) because the passes are priced so that they are too expensive for students and employees who drive to campus fewer than 3 days a week on average. This structure leaves many members of our community paying $15 each time they park on campus.
No other UMass campus, state university or community college charges its students, staff or faculty this much money to park on campus.
The only reason the administration has provided in defense of the extraordinarily expensive campus parking is the desire to have parkers generate sufficient revenue to not only cover the operations of the parking system (which totaled $3.4 million in 2025), but to additionally cover all debt and depreciation associated with all parking facilities. The debt and depreciation for parking facilities alone totaled over $6 million in 2025 and is anticipated to continue to cost about $6 million each year for the foreseeable future.
This is an insupportable position, and, based on our research, one that no other public higher education institution has taken when it comes to addressing campus debt. We understand that parking revenues should cover the costs to maintain parking areas but we consider it to be unethical to require costs to include all current and future debt incurred by the University in having the structures built. It is completely unfair to ask students and employees to bear the cost of such debt.
When we began transportation bargaining in 2023, the coalition put forward a package that offered the University an “escalator clause” with modest, automatic parking price increases in return for a package of transportation benefits that included the following:
- a sliding scale that reduced parking costs for union members who earn less than $50,000;
- 30-use pass with reduced parking fees to reduce parking costs for all union members;
- 50% MBTA pass subsidy;
- Daily rate of $15 (subject to increases according to the escalator clause)
Unfortunately, the administration was only willing to agree to a sliding scale that would have increased parking costs for everyone, even those who earn less than $50,000. They also refused to include a 30-use pass option, would agree to no more than a 20% MBTA pass subsidy, and an $18 a daily rate. At the last session, the University added a proposal to round the escalator increases to the nearest dollar, potentially increasing the parking costs even more.
We have brought our concerns to the administration many times over the years, begging for them to moderate their proposals and their expectations of revenue from parking. But no change in position manifested at the bargaining table.
As a result of not reaching an agreement with the coalition, MOUs signed by the parties in 2025 will go into effect (see MOU 7 and MOU 7A in the FSU contract). During main table negotiations (for our contracts), each union was presented with a proposal to allow administration in each new fiscal year to raise parking rates only if parking expenditure (including debt) exceeds revenues. The resulting rate increase will not exceed the contract’s cost of living increase. We expect the administration to release information soon about how much parking costs will increase on Sept. 1, 2026.
We all know that budgets and financial decisions reflect the values of an organization. Our administration’s position on parking fees shows clearly that it values our students and employees solely as sources of revenue, rather than as human beings who are essential members of the UMB community.
If, at any time, the administration wants to rethink its position, we are willing to recommence bargaining.
Union Coalition Members
Classified Staff Union: Alexa MacPherson, Jariza Rodriguez and Anna Rose (MTA field representative)
Department Chairs Union: Michael Carr
Faculty Staff Union: Caroline Coscia, Lorenzo Nencioli (FSU Senior Staff), Katie D’Urso (MTA field representatives)
Professional Staff Union: Anneta Argyres, Michelle Browning, Mary Jo Connelly (PSU Staff)