MEETING MINUTES

LOCAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE (LOC)

CENTER FOR HIGHER EDUCATION AT UNIVERSITY PLACE IN IDAHO FALLS

Tuesday, June 12, 2001

Present: Carol Baldwin, Mark Brainard, Jennifer Fisher, Leo Herrman, Ann Meikle-Howell, Sharon Montgomery, Bob Stiger, Glenn Wilde

Guests: Dennis Allen, Dave Anderson, Steve Chatterton, Phil Deaton, Connie Gomez, Greg Horton, Lee Krehbeil, Judy McPherson, Paul Patterson, Carol Spain

The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. MDT/1:00 p.m. PDT.

ITEM 1: Approval of Minutes - Jennifer Fisher moved approval of the May 16 meeting minutes. Carol Baldwin seconded. Motion carried.

Bob Stiger read a letter (Attachment 1) recognizing Steve Chatterton for his efforts in providing an emergency phone in the parking lot.

ITEM 2: Review of Action Items from May 16-

ITEM 3: Call for Additional Agenda Items - There were no additional items.

ITEM 4: Parking Fees - Phil Deaton presented his comments on parking fees (Attachment 2). Phil is a part time employee in the College of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Office, is an ISU student, and has worked for both ISU and UI. Jennifer Fisher emphasized the safety issue involved in maintaining the parking lots. She agreed that if there is a parking fee, use of funds needs to be demonstrated through the budgetary process.

ITEM 5: CST Charette - Bob Stiger reported there would be a two-day intensive planning session on the Center for Science and Technology on next week. He said the preliminary program would be completed July 1 and the schematic design ready by the end of July.

ITEM 6: CHE Scheduling Committee Annual Meeting - Bob Stiger provided a copy of Section 6.4.1 from the Agreement detailing an annual CHE Scheduling Committee Meeting. Action Item: Carol Spain will arrange a meeting within two weeks with the persons detailed in the Agreement.

 

ITEM 7: Teton Wireless Room/ISU Distance Learning Room - Dave Anderson said CHE Room 206B was adequate for the Teton Wireless Room except for the lack of air conditioning. The room does not impact the ISU Distance Learning room needs. Greg Horton discussed different options including the Department of Public Works funding to provide the air conditioning. He roughly estimated the cost at $5,000-$10,000. Jennifer Fisher moved the LOC approve the air conditioning request not to exceed $10,000 from the DPW funds. Glenn Wilde seconded. Motion carried.

Randy Gaines said ISU Distance Learning is in need of a new classroom due to the loss of the District 93 site. After discussion involving the need to retain all of the flat classrooms for regular classes and the feasibility of using a tiered classroom, the decision was deferred to the CHE Scheduling Committee meeting which was scheduled for June 25, 10:00 a.m. MDT.

ITEM 8: Parking Committee Update - Greg Horton reported the Parking Committee met the previous week. They had a lively discussion over the approval of the Parking Permit by the UPOC. Greg asked the LOC for clarification. Discussion ensued regarding budgets, INEEL parking lot permits, awareness of needs and costs of students, faculty and staff, main campus needs compared to the Center’s needs, night fees and event and guest parking. Bob Stiger referred the issues discussed in LOC and those presented by Phil Deaton back to the Parking Committee. If the Committee can’t reach consensus, they are to bring it back to the full LOC.

ITEM 9: Security Plan/Security Position - Steve Chatterton discussed money spent on security enhancements. The options for security coverage were discussed. Bob Stiger suggested gettting together offline. Action Item: Ann Meikle-Howell will ask Connie Gomez to arrange an Executive Committee meeting to discuss security issues.

ITEM 10: LOC Chair Alternation - Rotation of the chairmanship of the LOC was discussed. Jennifer Fisher moved Bob Stiger continue serving as chair for one more year since Ann Meikle-Howell had served for two years. Ann Meikle-Howell seconded. Motion carried.

ITEM 11: Adjournment - Ann Meikle-Howell moved the meeting adjourn. Leo Herrman seconded. Carried. Meeting adjourned at 4:02 p.m. MDT/3:02 PDT.

CERTIFICATION: Motions are verbatim. Other aspects of the minutes are not verbatim. To the best of my knowledge, they constitute an accurate record of the proceedings of the meeting. Minutes recorded by Carol Spain, Management Assistant, University of Idaho in Idaho Falls.

 

ATTACHMENT 1

 

 

ATTACHMENT 2

In a short while you will hear a report from the chair of the parking committee on the implementation of parking fees here at Idaho Falls. Greg Horton and the parking committee have done a reasonable job given the mandate of this Local Operation Committee.

That mandate, according to the Oct 17 minutes, was to devise a process to address the problem of parking fees. It was not a mandate on how to spend proceeds from fees or fines, but for two purposes only:

    1. To explore revenue sources for facilities issues
    2. For "safety" reasons.

The parking committee went well beyond the mandate to deliver a product that had discussed options such as building additional parking, bus or shuttle service, cost of implementing fees and charges to be made.

They did not discussed whether or not to implement fees because that was not part of their mandate. It has been acknowledge by members of this committee that this would not be a popular topic. No one likes fees. I am here to argue that there is not need for these fees.

Revenue and safety reasons are insufficient motives for implementation of parking fees.

    1. Glenn Wilde pointed out during the LOC meeting on the 13 of February that the budget can be used to keep up existing facilities which essentially negates the first reason.
    2. Though a lot of talk has been articulated, overcrowding has never of itself been a sufficient issue to implement fees or to address building a new lot. In fact, Greg Horton found during his survey that lot parking spaces were available even when people chose to park in an illegal area. The majority of parking problems occur at night or when there is an event at the auditorium.
    3. Safety is a more difficult subject because it holds different meanings to various people. To some it is enforcement of parking regulations; to others, it means having security personnel available to walk people to their cars late at night. Enforcement is already in place with the IFPD issuing tickets and the city collecting fines. Personal safety is more in the realm of security that is a different issue before the committee. I see no reason to create a bureaucracy to duplicate a service already provided.

Unless, of course, it comes down to making money by the collection of parking fees and fines. If the recommended fee of $40 is implemented, approximately 30% ($13000) of the parking fees will be utilized just to support its existence. The remaining 70% is not allocated to anything as yet. This results in effect to a "slush" fund available to this committee. This is one of my big objections to these parking fees. I am opposed to having this money undedicated to a specific purpose. In most budgetary processes, expenses are estimated, proposed and then approved in some fashion. This parking proposal provides just the opposite. It provides money and the LOC gets to decide how to spend it. Many of the suggestions I have heard discussed are items already budgeted or have other sources of financing.

If we are to charge for parking, and I am opposed to that proposal, we should implement it in such a manner that "students must realize some value for their fees" as noted in the parking minutes dated 1 February. I propose that if we are to implement parking fees that all monies in excess of parking fee operations be returned to the paying students, faculty and staff in the form of services that are available on campus, but not in Idaho Falls. (e.g. Gym, swimming, guest lecturers, etc).

Both proponents and opponents of parking fees have expressed feelings that this is a done deal. I really do not understand the pressure being applied to expedite this agenda. I doubt that any students or staff really approve of parking fees though responsible proposals may gain grudging support. I feel that too much emphasis has been stressed on how to implement parking fees and not enough concern given to the question of "if we should implement them." I would like to encourage you to exercise critical judgment before implementing a policy without proper forethought. The Parking Permit Proposal calls for implementation in Fall, 2001, but this is neither a hard or fast timetable.

There are some parking problems that will not be addressed by implementation of parking fees. You will still get complaints because parking regulations are not enforced at night and events will still be held at the auditorium. Jennifer Fisher noted in the minutes that auditorium events cause an increase in parking complaints. Failure to address nighttime parking and parking during auditorium events is a failure to address parking problems. Failure to address these issues lends credence to the opinion that the implementation of parking fees is for revenue only, and not for resolution of real problems. I feel that the majority of students and staff already feel this way. If fees are to be charged, equity demands that night students be charged for parking and that the auditorium rental be increased to include some revenue.

But I question the need for parking fees at all by restating the points already made:

    1. Enforcement to a degree is already being accomplished.
    2. Budgetary process for facility maintenance and upkeep are in place.
    3. Implementations of parking fees will not address parking problems.
    4. There is no need at the current time for additional parking. I understand that more parking will be available with the addition of the CRT building.

Finally, there is one significant reason not sufficiently addressed in discussion of parking fee implementation. Little concern has been given to the effect on the clientele of UP tenants. It is true that there is an educational element to the County Extension System. However, the District IV office of the CES is primarily focused on service. The "Ag office" services the 13 southeastern counties plus Ft. Hall. University Place is the central location for county agents and staff to conduct training and videoconferences via satellite. Any policy that effects the services provided by the College of Ag can have severe repercussions. The work done by plant pathologists, economists, potato and dairy specialists can have a direct effect on our community at large. For example, any policy that might limit access to our services could have an effect on plant disease propagation such as late blight. I feel that it is unacceptable to implement any policy that might limit such access.

Do we really need parking fees? The December minutes noted the oversight committee as saying that it is only a matter of time until parking fees will need to be implemented. One of the biggest arguments for parking fees is that both U of I and ISU’s campus has them. Contrary to popular belief, the implementation of parking fees is not required. A $40 fee will make Idaho Falls campus tied for the second highest general parking rate in the state.

If we are comparing by campus size, we should be in the free to $5 range. It is also interesting to note that ISU outreach at Twin Falls will remain free.

I feel a strong argument against implementation of parking fees is that you will put an additional burden upon the students that is not applied fairly across the student body. Students in Idaho Falls must travel to Pocatello to attend many classes, something students in Pocatello don't have to do. At 100 miles per trip, this totals up significantly over the course of a semester. An alternative to driving is taking the bus at an additional cost of several hundred dollars per semester. Again, this is something that Pocatello students don't have to do. I do not feel that I have to elaborate on the amount of services available on the campuses that are not available here.

Contrary to a perceive sense of urgency, we are under no obligation to implement any parking fee in the fall or ever. No harm will occur if we do not implement parking fees. If this committee decides to proceed with the implementation, we should include a bit of sweetness with the bitter and return some noticeable benefit to those paying for the program.

Here are my recommendations. Continue to use the IFPD for parking enforcement. This doesn’t cost us additional monies. Take the recommendations of the parking committee as just that, recommendations. The recommendations are useful down the road if it becomes necessary to implement them. It is unreasonable to implement a parking fee structure for the sole purpose of maintaining itself. I see no need of parking fees for facility costs. I see no need of parking fees for addition parking. I see no need of parking fees for enforcement. I see no need for a "slush" fund provided by the proposed parking fees. If there is a need for additional revenue, the reason should be identified, estimated, proposed, and then figured out how to finance.