Parking Advisory Committee
Meeting Minutes - Thursday, April 13, 2000
Next Regular Meeting
Thursday, 20 April
11 AM in CSU #280
Student Senate Office
Chairperson David Cowan convened a special meeting of the Parking Advisory committee at 11:12 AM on Thursday, April 13, 2000 in room 103 of the Centennial Student Union. The special meeting was called to review the "rough draft" preliminary report received April 7 from David Burr, consultant for Rich & Associates (Southfield, Michigan).
Regular PAC Members Present 5 of 6 members
1. Rose Marie Ley AFSCME Council 6, Local 638 Representative
2. David Cowan Administration Representative
3. Catherine W. Hughes MSUAASF Bargaining Unit Representative
4. Jesse Palmer Off- Campus Student Association Representative
(Christine Adams shares the seat; one is an alternate)
5. Steve Gilbert IFO Faculty Association Representative
Regular PAC Members Absent 1 of 6 members
1. Ian Radtke (Excused) On- Campus Student Assn. Representative
Ex-officio, Nonvoting Members Present 3 of 6 members
1. Sue Edstrom Parking and Traffic Services Coordinator
2. Kate Voight Parking Citation Appeals Board Coordinator
3. David Neve Business Affairs Representative
Members Absent 3 of 6 members
1. Christopher Goettl Residence Hall Association Representative
2. Larry Kohanek Facilities Mgmt. Planning & Construction Manager
3. Diane Solinger Residential Life Office Representative
Others in Attendance
1. Maggie Warning Building Services Department Employee
Without objection it was agreed to address both a question brought forward by Maggie Warning about Lot 16 as well as talk about reactions to the the Rich & Associates "rough" preliminary draft of the parking study.
Approval of Past Meeting Minutes Postponed March 31 & April 6
As this was a special meeting called for a specific purpose, review and approval of past meeting minutes was postponed until the next regular meeting on April 20th.
Simeon E-Mail "MSU Talk" Observations
Sue Edstrom commented that there was e-mail traffic on the "MSU Talk" site within the University's Simeon e-mail system. None of the comments conformed to the April 4th deadline for written comments for the Annual Public Hearing on Parking Policies. Here are the comments:
Mary Zernechel Wednesday, April 5th E-mail
Is anyone else as disgusted by the idea of paying more for parking next year? With the
loss of Lots #8 and #9, over 800 parking spaces are gone and with people coming and
going that is at least 1,200 parking spaces per day. We now need to walk 1 to 2 blocks
to make up for these spaces and now they want more money! Don't forget to attend the
Parking Advisory Committee meeting Thursday, April 6 at 1 in the CSU Room 284 if
Kelly Metag Thursday, April 6th E-mail Reply to Zernechel
I must say I agree with you! I don't like the idea myself. What exactly are we going to
be paying more for anyway? It definitely isn't the great convenience of closer or better
Jeffrey Hundstad Tuesday, April 11th E-mail Reply to Metag
I'm afraid what we're paying more for is the increased demand due to the removal of
available parking, i.e., supply vs. demand. I'd recommend NOT buying a space and
utilizing the free parking lot spaces. The buses pass by those lots every half hour.
Cowan indicated that a quick reading of the published hearing documents might have answered at least some of the questions raised in the e-mails. Perceptions continue to be very important and the PAC needs to make every effort to address such feelings. [The campus express buses circulate more than every half hour. Route 8 is a 15 minute round trip to the campus core and back to Lot 23 while Route 1 is a 22 minute run to the campus core, nearby apartment complexes, and back through Lot 23. Timing of the routes suggests a bus every ten minutes by a bus shelter.]
Rainbow Lot Adjacent to Performing Arts Center & Andreas Theatre
Maggie Warning asked what, if anything, the PAC was planning to recommend regarding the future of General Purple permit holder access to Lot 16. She explained that she was a current purple permit holder who parked routinely in Lot 16 but didn't know whether to submit a FY'01 parking application for General Purple or Reserved Gold. The Reserved Gold application drawing deadline is Friday, April 21.
Kate Voight noted that the PAC had not made any decision relative to recommending a parking ramp or buying up privately held real estate abutting the redwood fence on the east end of Lot 16. The draft report of the parking consultant indicates that a parking garage would be hard, if not impossible, to cash flow.
Cowan indicated that he had recently talked to MnSCU's Pat Lindgren who had reported that MnSCU might be successful this year getting the Legislature to raise the $45 million ceiling to $100,000 for system revenue bonds.
Also Pat Lindgren had told Cowan that parking is now part of the definition of revenue bonding projects along with the traditional student union and residence hall elements. If the current $45 million cap is increased, Cowan stated that it is possible to submit a request to MnSCU that it sell bonds on our behalf to generate revenues needed to buy properties nearby Lot 16 and/or build a table top parking structure. Paying off the bonds would be less expensive at 5% rather than a 8% to 9% annual cost, nevertheless the cost of a parking ramp would require user fees that may be more than three times what is now paid by permit holders and/or visitors paylot patrons.
Though Legislative leaders had hoped the 2000 Session of the Legislature would adjourn before the Easter Weekend of April 22/23, Cowan indicated it was doubtful that would happen and MSU would have to wait to hear whether or not "revenue" bonding authority had been increased.
It was noted that the PAC's endorsed capital improvement plan had $80,000 set aside for resurfacing Lot 16,
a project that would require the painting of new parking stalls on the new asphalt. A new striping plan was just released by Construction Manager Larry Kohanek which would increase the number of available stalls in Lot 16.
Cowan indicated, though he did not have the plan in hand, that there was a net gain of stalls in Lot 16 due to the
striping the new surface this summer Cowan drew on the white board what he believed the new plan would provide.
Cathy Hughes moved that the PAC adopt "Plan A" which would eliminate General Purple permits from parking in Lot 16. Motion failed: 2 yes; 3 no.
David Cowan moved that the PAC adopt the new striping plan allowing General Purple permit holders to park in a clearly designated area on the north side of Lot 16. Motion passed: 4 yes; 1 no. This vote was contingent on
the actual drawing showing a net gain of stalls with diagonal stalls showing against the north curb line.
The following table was developed after the meeting and is included in these minutes to help clarify the above motions.
|Permit Type||Existing Stall
|General Purple||100 Estimated||- 0 -||61 Fixed||35 Fixed|
|Res. Hall Green||370 Estimated||472||411 Fixed||457 Fixed|
Without objection the meeting was adjourned at 12:10 PM.