Parking Task Force Meeting
May 7,2007 2:00-4:00 pm
Attendees: Barry Barbe, John Case, Amy Liikala Conwi, Jason Ziegler, Joe Hadley, Paul Hammond, Ed Mink, David Pierson, Susan Ramlo, Darin Siley, Harvey Sterns, Oletha Thompson, Laurie Madden, Margaret Wineman, Chanda Elam
Absentees:Darin Siley, Carolyn Desssin, Richard Glotzer
Meeting Minutes
- Introduction
a. John Case welcomed Chandra Elam to the committee. She is representing the graduate
students for the committee.
b. The committee reviewed the benchmark data that was distributed.
c. A Parking Study Task Force Status Report was distributed reflecting what actions had
been taken to date, what issues needed further discussion and the topics that had been
finalized.
d. Susan Ramlo handed out a definition of what the different types of groups that this
committee needs to determine where to park.
II. Committee Discussion
a. Dave Pierson reported that he had seen two Metro campus shuttles stopped at Polsky’s
with no drivers in attendance. Laurie Madden stated she would check on this.
b. Discussion was held regarding the current shuttle system including the history and
problems currently being experienced. Margaret Wineman suggested that the residence
hall students park in the periphery lots. Barry Barbe suggested that the residence hall
students would not mind parking in the periphery lots at a reduced parking permit cost.
Barry Barbe stated to just take parking away from the residents would not work
because they have jobs off campus to go to.
c. It was decided for future conversations the designation of state maintenance vehicles
would be University owned as this will included all University vehicles.
d. Discussion was held regarding what was considered to be a periphery lot.
e. A suggestion was made to review where people are located in each building and define
what lot they could park in. This led to a discussion of different types of parking
options that could be recommended by the committee.
III. Parking Design Options
Option 1
Flexible vs. Non-Flexible – This design option allows for the designation of
Each employee and student based on specific criteria.
Flexible:
- Commuter students with jobs (many with full time jobs) who take classes during the day {evening-only commuters are part of the evening-only group who do not experience parking problems – only safety issues}
- Part time staff working during the day
- Part time faculty teaching during the day
- Full time faculty who do not work a regular business day & do have to leave and return to campus on a regular basis {e.g. does not include going to the doctor on occasion}.
- Business people such as copy machine repair persons although these folks could park at metered locations
- Full-Time Administration (Need to clarify this one).
Non-Flexible:
- Full time staff who do not leave campus as part of their job duties (or who leave campus but use university vehicles).
- Dorm students who have cars on campus.
- Commuter students who are on campus during a regular (or multiple regular) business days.
- Some faculty who work / teach during a regular business day (whether M-F or individual business days) who do not leave campus & return during the day as part of performing their job duties.
The lots would be designated Flexible and Non-Flexible and each permit would reflect the appropriate designation. There could be a hybrid of these lots where there were some non-flexible spaces found in each flexible lot and the reverse.
Option 2
Assigned Parking – this design option would assign each individual faculty and staff
member to a specific parking lot based on their office location. The lots would be
designated to the specific building(S) and the permits would reflect this assignment. The
students would be free to park anywhere there is an available spot during normal
class hours but the overnight resident hall students would be assigned a specific location.
Option 3
Current Parking Design – Continue on with the current parking design. Improve the
current program with suggestions (TBD).
Option 4
Tiered/Preferred Parking – This design option would specifically designate lots that are
reserved for customers that have paid a premium to park in these facilities. There
would also be a parking permit (REDUCED COST) that is designated as a remote lot? This
option would require a new shuttle system to transport from lots that are located outside the campus footprint.
IV. Data Needs
a. Shuttle Bus Plan Analysis
V. Next Steps
a. Hold a special meeting to discuss only the Shuttle Bus Plan Analysis.
b. Discuss a recommendation for the Shuttle Bus System.
c. Continue the discussion on where to park all the different groups at the June 4th Parking
Study Task Force meeting.
The next meeting is scheduled for May 14th from 2:00-3:00pm in the McCollester Room.
1