1. The proposed Parking and Transportation Infrastructure fee amounts to an employment tax on KSU employees. While portrayed as an increase of the former $20 fee, this new mandatory infrastructure fee is not comparable, as it affords employees no parking privileges. The proposed fee is modest and would yield little revenue, but the precedent it would establish is a bad one: that the institution may impose a mandatory general fee on all employees as a means to pay for facilities and services that many of those employees do not use.
2. The proposed infrastructure fee muddles the incentive structure for employees who are doing the most to alleviate parking concerns--those engaging in alternative commuting methods. The funds raised through the infrastructure fee on the backs of these employees are trivial, while the glaring contradiction they pose is overwhelming. To address KSU's parking pressure most directly and environmentally, the infrastructure fee should be scrapped and the needed revenues should be raised otherwise.
II. In opposition to a cap on parking fees, if such fees are calculated on the basis of a percentage of employee salary.
1. The proposal to tie parking permit fees to salary level requires further consideration; the information presented on KSU's parking website shows this to be a highly unusual practice. Should KSU seek to implement a percentage-scale fee, there should be no cap on the salary basis for calculation.