June 18, 2014,

The paid parking lot by the SUB will be converted to meters, the current staff will move to other duties within the parking organization, parking permits will increase $5, and a sub-committee is being formed to investigate a parking garage.

May 28, 2014,

Topics included the need for 80 parking spaces in the vicinity of the new dorm west of Miller, upgrading paid parking with “pay and display” for fall 2014 which uses a credit card or cat card, and still considering parking space replacement when the Asbjornson starts construction.

January 16, 2013,

As reported at the Staff Senate meeting. Follow up on a request to add a second entry/exit point to the Linfield Hall parking lot.  The request was denied at this time.  There is a proposal before the President to increase parking fees $5 for both FY14 and FY15.  Facilities raised quality issues regarding small utility vehicle usage months ago with the President, these issues continue to be evaluated. 

August 29, 2012,

As reported at the Staff Senate meeting August 15. The preferred parking permit request method is electronic.  To encourage this method the Board is proposing a $5 transaction fee for all paper or in person parking permit requests.  Payroll deduction for parking permits changed from a ten-month cycle to an eight-month cycle.  The Board has authorized a parking survey of other universities in regard to their costs, fees, garages, etc.  The F lot is scheduled for paving in late fall.  Pending President and Regent approval a parking permit fee increase is being proposed.  

June 23, 2012,

As reported at the Staff Senate meeting of July 18.  Topics of discussion included paving of F lot, parking structure locations, a potential rate increase, two 30-minute spots in the Hamilton parking lot will be testing metered parking, if successful up to 60 metered spots could be added around campus, and West Harrison Street will be extended through to South 11th Avenue. 

May 23, 2012,

As reported at the Staff Senate meeting of June 20.  President Cruzado attended the meeting and noted three improvements she would like to see.  1) Pave the F parking lot, 2) Build a parking structure, and 3) Open Harrison through to 11th Avenue. Steve noted that three parking meters will be installed in the Hamilton lot as a test.  Senators requested more information regarding paving the F lot and how that would affect parking fees and location of the parking structure. 

February 15, 2012,

As reported at the Staff Senate meeting. Parking lots have been deteriorating over the past several years and many are in need of repair, sealing, and striping.  A pay lot north of Linfield Hall will move forward.  The group will be sending out a satisfaction survey.  Senators noted that most of the proposals for the new business building have been proposed in current parking lot spaces which have the potential to put added strain on parking availability.  

November 16, 2011,

As reported at Staff Senate meeting. Parking & Transportation Advisory met in September but did not meet in October per Molly.  Discussion included special events parking.  Senators discussed how events are communicated.  Senators requested Molly work with the Committee to improve announcements and information available to employees and students. 

July 28, 2011,

The Parking & Transportation Advisory met.  The team discussed financial position of parking and anticipates parking fee increases next year.   They are reviewing a complaint regarding event parking.  Move-In Day, 8/24 which is a high traffic volume day, is the day the 11th and College traffic circle will open and the 8th Avenue construction is anticipated to be fully open as well.  Streamline begins its fall schedule at the end of August. 

April 20, 2011,

The Parking & Transportation Advisory met.  As reported at the Staff Senate meeting, since the parking fee increase was not passed discussion was held on restructuring fines and other ways to increase revenues, they discussed visitor violation and collecting those fines.  Senator’s discussed parking lot demand for events, vendor parking, and a parking garage.  Also under discussion is expanding the pay lot. 

February 23, 2011,

Minutes approved.

Action Items:

  • Warnings: policy and financials – Parking Services Manager Kurt Blunck reviewed possible changes to the violation fee structure that could be an additional source of revenue. Options discussed included:

    • Eliminating the first warning given to vehicles not displaying a permit. Currently, violators receive one warning per academic year. Proposal is to reduce Failure to Register ($60) citations to Failure to Display ($30) for those who forget to display hangtag. For people who do not have a permit, option to purchase a full permit and have the fine waived or pay the fine. May want to have a different policy for visitors so as to ensure good community relations. Estimated recoverable revenue: $137,977.

    • Work to collect unpaid citations. Estimated recoverable revenue: $11,283.

    • Kurt Blunk will provide a summary of the proposed changes for review at the next meeting.

Information Items:

  • Traffic / Parking Demand Management Presentation by David Kack of the Western Transportation Institute. Opportunities to reduce parking demand include:

    • Guaranteed Ride Home in case of emergency for bicyclists / bus / carpools

    • Distance-based fees: Permit price increases the closer you live to campus

    • Carpool matching software

  • Governance group meetings: Future meetings with the various governance groups represented on PTAC was discussed; however, Kurt Blunck was hesitant to schedule meetings until there is more information about what funding alternatives are available since the permit fee increase was denied. I suggested that meeting with the groups might generate some additional ideas for alternative funding mechanisms, but it was determined that for now specific questions can be raised through the representatives.

January 26, 2011

Minutes approved.  OCR-lack of adequate ADA parking.  We’re not illegal as far as ADA requirements, but a study found that some issues need to be reconciled. Repainting and new signs will be done by August.  Maybe a combination between facilities painting and outside contractor.  This summer an architect professor is working with a group of students to study disability pathways.  This will provide more information about our accessibility issue.

PEC Action-Parking Business Plan proposed: - Smallest increases in the coming years; Fund balanced by FY19; and Annual R&R stabilizes a $77K/FY 19.  President declined. She did not want to see any increase.  Business Plan is DOA

FY11-173K shortfall

FY12-204K shortfall

Options: raid R&R fund to cover costs or cut costs.

R&R out of money in 2018.  Parking fund out in 2019.

Costs: Operations 20%, capital 3%, Personnel  77%

Sever cuts in service and layoffs.  Must fund police-can’t effectively run force with less

By FY19, must borrow money.  This will cost $12 million to fund loan.

Results: Parking services unable to cover long term maintenance costs    ;

                  New direction:

                  -Defer mill overlays immediately

                  -Continue annual maintenance and 5 year seal coats until funding is exhausted in FY18

                  -remove lots from inventory as they deteriorate.  People will still be charged to park they, but lots will not be maintained.         

                                    -decrease costs

                                    -decrease parking availability

                                    -decrease convenience and accessibility

                                    -will require bond and debt service for remaining lots

No parking increase now, but costs will be larger later.

October 27, 2010

  • Attendees:


Anderson, Molly


LaCrone, Linda


Putzke, Robert


Blunck, Kurt


Lashaway, Bob


Saunders, Chris


Catlett, Chris


Leist, Terry


Taylor, Shannon


Huls, Dale


Mackin, Bill


York, Brenda


Kack, Dave


Mashaw, Kristine


ASMSU- Shelby Rogalla


  • Approval of Minutes:

 X     Approved as written

   Approved with changes as noted below:


   Not reviewed and approved this meeting


  • Action Items:


    • FY12 Business Plan financials.


      • Five scenarios presented; scenarios were slightly different than those presented in September meeting:

        • Scenario 1: No increases in FY12-13; Expenditures greater than revenues FY11 and on; fund balance negative in FY12.

        • Scenario 2: Largest proposed increase in FY12-13; fund balance restored in FY13.

        •  Scenario 3: Moderate increases for FY12-15; repairs fund damage by FY15

        • Scenario 4:  Smallest increase that maintains positive fund balance; repairs fund balance by FY19. 

        • Scenario 5: Small increases over time; borrow for major long term maintenance needs.

Discussion centered on need for fiscally responsible approach to parking.  Terry Leist asked question about cutting costs in parking.  Specifically, wanted to know why there was a 25% increase in personnel costs.  Increase primarily due to full staffing and the fact that we are a significant source of funding to University Police.  Very few costs that can be cut without significantly impacted parking or police, for example, decreases would require cutting back on snow removal, routine annual maintenance and long term maintenance thus increasing costs in the end.  Questions came from Leist and Rogalla concerning the amount of parking support to police.  Bob Lashaway responded that approximately $300,000 is paid to police over and above the value of services police renders to parking and suggested that if alternate state/university funding for police were found, parking would not need the permit increases to be so large.  (Note: Actual value of parking subsidy to police over and above value of police services to parking is $483,000.)  However, competition for funding is tight and any money given to police to offset parking expenditure would almost certainly come out of other University programs.

Other questions: a. Have we factored in an increase in demand? No, there is enough excess capacity on campus at present; also, we are already have a better parking to permit ratio than our sister institutions.  Increases in capacity are therefore not factored in and any increase in capacity would require that we consider how to fund our Capital Expansion fund.  b.  Is the F lot construction and subsequent maintenance factored in?  Yes because there is currently no money in the Capital Expansion fund.  c.  Do we consider other options such as demand management, climate action considerations etc? No, current business plan does not take into account effect Demand Management strategies, mass transit or surcharges for climate action might have on finances.

Scenarios 1 and 5 ruled out because there is no provision for Parking Services to be able to deficit spend (Scenario 1);  borrowing an additional $6M and burdening future users with $18M-$25M in permit increases for debt service was not deemed acceptable. 

Committee voted to accept Scenario 4 with the caveat the PTAC would examine/pursue recommendation to seek general fund funding for police funding, rather than taking it out of parking.


  • Informational Items:

    • Permit Direct status: Not covered.

    • Online Payroll Deduction status—Blunck reported that development work is largely done will be testing in operational environment; web page integration is next.

    • Contract status—Blunck provided update on towing and snow removal contracts

    • OCR complaint.  Blunck provided background on complaint to OCR regarding ADA parking on campus.  Blunck promised update once OCR response received.


  • Additional Items as Raised by Members or Guests:


Note:         Additional items are informational for this meeting, but may be action items in future meetings as appropriate.

September 22, 2010,

Approved as written, Approved with changes as noted below: Not reviewed and approved this meeting.

  • Action Items:

    • FY12 Business Plan financials.
      • 2 year revision of the Parking Business Plan is underway for the FY12 biennium.  By State Statute, parking is required to be self-sufficient (no state or tuition monies used)
      • Permit prices are driven by maintenance, operating, and personnel costs.  3 different financial scenarios were presented under the following assumptions: Maintenance Plan out to 2045 to provide seal coats, mill-overlays, and complete reconstructions.  Under current projections, it will cost an estimated $26M to maintain parking lots over the next 35 years.  These funds will be paid from the long term R&R fund.  This cost is less than the last 2-year revision due to decreased labor and materials costs.
      • Permit prices have not increased since FY09 (June 2008).  PTAC recommended a 12% increase for FY10 and a 14% increase for FY11.  Both were rejected by UPBAC.
      • Scenario 1: No R&R Contributions, no permit price increase until FY16 -  the parking fund balance will be exhausted by FY13.  Without annual contributions we will draw down the R&R fund from $2M to $489K by FY15.  This would result in a 75% permit price increase in FY16
      • Scenario 2: R&R contributions and no permit increase until FY16 – we will exhaust the parking fund balance by FY12, the R&R balance would be $1.2M, and permit prices would need to increase by 135% in FY16.
      • Scenario 3: R&R contribution and permit price increase.  This scenario allows us to maintain healthy parking and R&R fund balances.  Permit prices would increase by 10% in FY12,13; 11% in FY14, 12% in FY15 and 3% in FY16.
      • All scenarios assume static operations and personnel costs. The long term R&R fund is back-end loaded, seeing higher maintenance costs in the future; this is because our lots are mostly still in the first phases of construction, requiring seal coats and mill overlays rather than complete reconstructions.
      • The scenarios above show the effect of not increasing permit prices over the last few years.  If we elect not to fund for the future (R&R), we will have lots in disrepair and we will spend more money in the future to correct the problems.
      • We need to present a responsible business plan as a jumping off point with the BOR to show the long term effects of the decisions we make today.
  • Informational Items:

    • Permit Direct status
      • Permit Direct allows individuals to register and pay online and the permit will be shipped directly to the individual.
      • This year, we processed 1879 online transactions (~1/3 of sales).  Roughly 4,000 were processed over the counter at UPD.
      • In total ~40-50 errors encountered early on in the process –now fixed.  Errors included: UPS/FedEx unable to ship to PO boxes, operator errors in entering an address, and selecting the wrong permit for the customer category.  The mailing option on the website will be changed to only allow USPS – this will prevent PO Box shipping errors.
      • Ultimate goal is to do all parking registration online.  Target date is next year – we will begin to look at the process in Feb/Mar 2011.
      • FGH permits are not currently online.  We will begin to work with them on an auto feed, similar to the employee/student feeds, to tell us who is living in FGH.  In the same fashion as E permits are made available only to Residence Hall occupants; FGH residents will only have the option to purchase FGH permits.
    • Online Payroll Deduction status
      • Currently not online.  Successful test of auto feed from T2 completed 9/17/10
      • Manual entries of payroll deductions are underway so that employees will see normal deductions from their paychecks beginning with the October paycheck.  Data transfer from T2 to payroll.
      • Web is under development to allow the payroll deduction option for 2011 registration. 
    • Contract status
      • Snowplowing contract is out for bid and expected to be done by end of month.  Bid differently this year to provide a ceiling on the amount charged per snow event.  Bidders were provided with the square footage of each lot and asked to provide an estimate for a standard 6” dry January snowfall.
      • Towing contract has been awarded to Best Rate towing (same vendor as last year)
  • Additional Items as Raised by Members or Guests:

 Note:       Additional items are informational for this meeting, but may be action items in future meetings as appropriate.

  • Parking received an OCR complaint.  Blunck is currently generating a report to provide details about the number of spaces/lot, width and access, and signage for the 10/04/10 deadline.  In aggregate, we have more ADA spaces on campus than are required.  The OCR complaint needs to address every spot on campus, not just those managed by Parking services; this includes Federal facilities and unpaved surfaces, as the institution is responsible as a whole.


  • October meeting, propose revisions to the plans presented today
  • November/December meeting, vote on recommendation

July 28, 2010,

Approval of Minutes: Minutes were not ready for approval.
Action Items:


  1. F-Lot paving project: The Committee  voted to recommend approval of moving forward with paving or redoing the next portion of the F-Lot, with the following stipulations:
    1. Lot designation (F or SB) will be based on demand.
    2. Review the maintenance model to factor the cost of paving future sections into the long-term maintenance plan

Information Items:

  • There will be a feasibility study of an additional pay lot on the north side of campus.
  • The “Where to Park” webpage should go live before students return.  This page is intended to help people know what lots are likely to have open spaces at different times of the day.
  • Letters to permit holders will go out today or tomorrow with information about how to purchase hangtags for the coming year.  People will be able to order their hangtags online, but payroll deductions cannot be set up online.
  • Streamline: 1 of the Livingston routes has been cut due to funding issues.

June 23, 2010,

Approval of Minutes: Minutes were not ready for approval. Action Items: No action items.
Information Items:

  • F-Lot Paving Estimate: Kurt Blunck received an estimate for the next stage of paving for the F-Lot on the corner of Kagy and 11th.  The proposal is to pave the next section of the lot, adding an estimated 312 parking spots (this will roughly double the current paved portion size).  
  1. The estimated total cost is $360,000:
  2. $255,000 for construction
  3. $30,000 for landscaping and drainage
  4. $30,000 for the design
  5. $30,000 for contingencies
  6. $10,000 for other expenses
  • The tentative date for construction is summer 2011 (next summer).  In order to meet this start date, action must be taken on this item at the next PTAC meeting.  The option of a permeable surface was discussed.  Concerns include increased cost and implications for the overall maintenance schedule.  Kurt Blunck may look into this.
  • Possible addition of a pay lot to the north side of campus:  Currently, there is one pay lot on campus south of the SUB.  This lot generates approximately $1600 per space per year, compared to $260 per space per year for permit spaces.  The pay lot is heavily utilized (it is full most of the time between 9:30 and 3:30) by visitors to campus, faculty, staff, and students.  Parking Services is exploring the option of adding another pay lot to the NW quadrant of campus (i.e., Linfield, Langford, or Greenhouse lots).  The customer base would be Plant/Animal sciences, Montana Hall, and the Chem/Biochem buildings.  I raised concerns over the loss of parking for permit holders, particularly staff in Culbertson, Wilson, Linfield, etc.  Kurt Blunck indicated that this is just a possibility being discussed and will be approaching building supervisors and others to assess the need for a pay lot. 

May 4, 2010,

Parking and Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting,Approval of Minutes: Minutes from the last meeting were approved. Action Items: No action items. Information Items:


  1. Review Capital Replacement plan for parking
    1. Capital expenditures for FY10 (Current)
      1. GMC Sierra 2500 Truck: $20,918
      2. Snowplow blade: $5,885
      3. Parking On-Line Subscription (Annual): $31,200
    2. Capital expenditures for FY11 (Anticipated)
      1. Replace parking car with truck: $15,748
      2. Parking On-Line Subscription (Annual): $32,448
    3. Capital expenditures for FY12 (Anticipated)
      1. Replace parking truck: $22,625
      2. Replace snowplow: $6,365
      3. Parking On-Line Subscription (Annual): $33,746
    4. Parking Services Director Kurt Blunck reported that they are working towards interfacing the on-line parking system with Banner so that hang tags can be purchased online.  He is still waiting on a statement of work and cost estimate from ITC. 
  2. Summer Maintenance update
    1. Planned Rotation:  South Hedges, Hamilton Hall, and Greenhouse Lots are not part of the normal maintenance rotation this year, but construction staging has affected the condition of the lots and so they will be included in this year’s summer maintenance. 
      1. South Hedges Lot
      2. Hamilton Hall Lot
      3. Greenhouse Lot
      4. New Gatton Lot
      5. Harrison Street (overlay)
      6. Hannon / South 7th Street (Hamilton Access)
    2. Total Estimated Cost: $109,157
    3. Hamilton is the only project scheduled thus far.  Staff can access information about the maintenance schedule on the Parking & Transportation Services website.  Notices will be provided via MSUToday and signs posted at lot entrances. 
  3. Parking finance update
    1. This was postponed to next month’s meeting because of pending information.

March 24, 2010,

Parking and Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting as submitted by Molly Anderson, approval of Minutes: Minutes from the last meeting were approved. Action Items: No action items.

Information Items:

  • ADA Signs and MSU Permits: The policy on ADA tags and MSU permits was clarified.  An MSU permit (either yearly or visitor) is still required even if someone has an ADA tag.  To avoid future confusion, all ADA signs will now have an MSU Parking Permit Required sign.  Facilities is providing $2500 - $3000 to cover the cost of the new signs.
  • Summer maintenance projects:
  1. Annual Seal Coat cost is estimated at $65,000 to $70,000.
  2. Crack sealing and striping: Kurt will look at the budget but will likely do every lot this year.  Parking Services tries to limit lot closures to 3 days for this work.
  3. F-Lot Grading: Kurt is trying to have this done before commencement at an estimated cost of $5,000.
  4. Additional smaller projects include hash marks for the new gate in the RV lot, signage changes, and a change to the ADA spot in the Huffman Lot.
  5. Total costs for summer maintenance projects is estimated at $125,000 to $130,000 (including the Annual Seal Coat).
  • Snow Emergency Plan
  1. Parking Services is currently developing a Snow Emergency Plan in response to the heavy snow event last November. 
  2. The plan lays out scenarios for different snowfalls to define when Parking Services can declare an emergency.  The threshold will likely be 6 inches of heavy, wet snow and 12 inches of dry snow.
  3. The likely course of action once an emergency is declared is to plow outer lots as possible during the day, continue plowing through the night, and close lots the next day if necessary.
  4. Parking Services is still determining how this will work with the snow removal contracts as it requires contractors to be able to provide additional equipment and labor.
  5. Communication options for Emergency Announcements include MSU Today and Public Service Announcements.  I asked whether there could be a webpage where employees could check for announcements before coming into work; Kurt indicated that this is a possibility.
  6. Concerns were raised about whether the campus might need to be closed if more than 25% of the lots had to be closed.
  • South Hedges Lot entrance
  1. Parking Services is going to make permanent the construction entrance in the South Hedges Lot.  This will allow better access and is being paid for under the Gaines project agreement at no cost to Parking Services.  The entrance will be designed to minimize loss of parking spaces.
  • Parking Forum
  • The first parking forum was held on March 23, 2010.  Attendance was low, but there were good discussions about fee structuring, parking availability and convenience, and incentives for alternative transportation.
  • Additional questions / issues raised at the forum included:
  1. Parking garages: There are no immediate plans or proposals to install a parking garage on campus, although Parking Services has looked into the option.  Cost is likely prohibitive.
  2. Director Blunck confirmed that there will be no fee increases for the coming business year (FY 2011), but did not exclude the possibility of fee increases in the next biennium.  Parking Services will work with PTAC on this issue.
  3. Parking Services is preparing a constituent survey for this coming fall (surveys are administered every other year). 
  4. Parking Services is currently conducting a study of parking lot usage to provide a clearer picture of high-use areas and times.  This information could potentially be posted to a website to help permit holders know what areas are most likely to have open spaces at different times.
  • Next forum is scheduled for March 29 from 5-7pm in SUB 235.

October 28, 2009,

Parking Services Advisory Committee Meeting report as submited by Diane Heck.

At today’s meeting the minutes from last month were approved.  Since I was not in attendance last month I will bring you up to date with their actions from last month.  The committee was petitioned to consider reversing their decision to raise the cost of motorcycle tags.  The reasons cited were 1.) it is “green” as in saving fuel in driving a larger vehicle, 2.) taking up less space, & 3.) motorcyclists already pay a fee to park a vehicle so it is discriminatory that a tag cannot be used for the motorcycle as it can
for a second vehicle (portable tags).  The decision was made to reverse the increase and go back to the current price of a motorcycle tag which is $15.  The committee also discussed a parking lot survey (survey of condition of parking lots).  One lot was designated as in need of a full replacement.  In other words they did not feel it would help to do overlays at this time.  The discussion was on whether or not to spend the funds now and replace or wait until it degrades further before replacement.  This is still being considered.   

Today 8 or 10 month payroll deductions for parking fees was discussed.  Apparently it causes problems in payroll when a 10 month deduction is used.  Payroll would like to reduce that to 8 months.  At today’s meeting it was decided that this is not a Parking Services issue because Parking Services receives the fees in either situation.  Therefore this issue is deleted from the Parking Services agenda. 

Additionally, Kurt Blunck updated us on the abandoned/impounded vehicle auction held October 5th.  This was the first vehicle auction held by MSU personnel.  It was formerly held by city personnel.  The auction was a success in that 14 of 25 vehicles were sold.  The will have this auction about every two years. 

Next Parking Services Advisory Committee meeting will be in early December. 

April 22, 2009,

Parking Advisory Committee Report as submitted by Diane. They will be seal coating the following lots this summer:  Field House, Roske, Quads, and the Greenhouse after construction is done.  There will be a web link that shows the schedule.  They have contracted (along with Auxiliary Services) TDH to do a Parking Lot/Street Maintenance Study.  This will potentially impact the long-term maintenance plan.  It is due in August.  Considering fixing some of the potholes in the F-Lot prior to commencement.  A study will be conducted on F-Lot future – gravel vs. pave.  Current and future projects near campus:  19th construction ongoing this summer and fall; 11th and College roundabout moving forward with bid set for late June; Town & Country store will be in the old campus theatre and impacts will be a possible light on Kagy and 11th, South turn lane on 11th onto Lincoln, and possibly no street parking from Lincoln to Kagy.  Some potential future projects include widening College Main to Wilson, widen Kagy Greek Way to 19th, finish 8th from College to Main, and a College street pedestrian path (west access to campus).  Parking Fines will increase.  The City Parking lot will be added to the Streamline route.

October 22, 2008,

Ronda Russell, Director of Admissions, about family parking on MSU Fridays. Per Kurt Blunck, Parking Manager, Parking will work with Admissions to provide a method which will allow families to park for free on campus on MSU Fridays. They will probably generate special hangtags for them to use. Craig Roloff has agreed to fund these hangtags. This is all part of the campus recruitment effort.

Blunck explained to the Committee that if and when Town & Country Groceries replaces the campus theater on South 11th the city plans to make slight changes to 11th. They will make the street what they call collector status. This will mean there will no longer be parking on the street at that end of 11th. The placement of Town & Country on 11th is not a done deal yet and is still being reviewed by the city.


Blunck gave a presentation on calculations for projected costs out through 2046. These costs include lot maintenance and replacement over time and funding enforcement. (Reminder: Parking cannot use state funds and must be self supporting.) Due to rising costs and projected long term maintenance he recommends a 15% increase to maintain a positive fund balance for parking in order to ensure that we can adequately maintain our parking assets over time. A 10% increase was also discussed. A recommendation was made by a committee member and seconded to accept the 15% increase. A vote was taken and this was passed with only two NO votes of which one was mine. I objected on the grounds that our wages do not increase at this rate. Please do remember this is not a final decision but just a recommendation being passed on by the committee to the appropriate upper administration. PTAC only makes recommendations. I did request that Kurt Blunck come to a Staff Senate meeting and discuss the fees and expenses of parking. He said he would be happy to do this.

The next meeting of PTAC is set for November but may be cancelled.

The Parking Advisory Committee (PTAC) meet on Feb 27th. Deanna Tarum from the Office of Planning and Analysis was introduced to the committee as she will represent Planning and Analysis at these meetings. She replaces Ben Sharp. The bicycle regulations sub Committee reported. The No Ride Zone on the Centennial Mall is not being enforced due to lack of manpower. The sub-committee felt this was OK as the bikers are riding safely and responsibly. The sub-committee agreed to recommend the No Ride Zone should be repealed. There was no agreement on bike parking and the sub-committee agreed to continue to discuss bike parking and bike racks. The main PTAC committee discussed different styles of bike racks available, bike barns for storage, and cost associated.

PTAC will research the issue of the demand for pay lots.

Blunck advised the committee that the snow removal contract with Four Seasons has expired because it exceeded the $25,000 limit. A new contract went out for bid and the lowest bidder was Sleepy Hollow. Clarification on snow removal: Service contract provides for the plowing and snow removal in all the parking lots and facilities services take care of removing snow form the sidewalks.

Next Meeting April 23.

January 23, 2008,

The Committee reviewed the annual maintenance list of parking lots for summer maintenance. The Wally Byam Caravan Club (RVs) will be on campus the end of June and first week of July which will affect the schedule. Additionally, building construction staging may also affect the schedule. The current bicycle regulations are being reviewed. PTAC will be reporting to PEC (President's Executive Council) in February. There was a discussion on the availability of parking for those employees who are off-campus but need to come to campus during the day for meetings and errands. The discussion will continue.

October 23, 2007

The Parking & Transportation Advisory Committee (PTAC) meet today, October 24th. Jo Oudshoorn, Chair of the Parking Manager Search Committee, reported that the search is going well. There were 17 applicants, honed down to 4 in the top pool via resume scoring and initial phone interviews. The Search Committee is currently interviewing these 4 applicants, 3 of which the interviews have been completed. The committee will start reference calls and complete the 4th interview over the next few weeks and will be giving the hiring authority, Robert Putzke-Chief of Campus Police, a list of the interviewees and their strengths and weaknesses as the committee sees them. A decision and offer is anticipated the first week of November. After much deliberation and research new parking software will be purchased in the near future. It will be able to interact with Banner. PTAC is currently, and will be through November, reviewing the campus parking regulations and making edits, additions, and deletions. That's all for now. Any questions or concerns please contact me.

November 29, 2006,

Members Present: Banziger, Burns, Carroll, Fradette, Huls, Kack, Martin, Oudshoorn, Putzke, Saunders, Sharp, Taylor, York. Members Absent: Baumbauer. Guests: Lashaway
The following items were discussed: Fradette briefed the committee on his presentation to Residence Hall Association leadership regarding the proposed parking fines. He said the students questioned why citations were waved and asked about the possibility of boots on vehicles. The majority of students present felt that the increase in fines is needed. The committee discussed the student's feedback. Fradette will follow-up with RHA when they meet again in January. As a way of obtaining more student communication, the notes from the PTAC meeting will be sent to the ASMSU president. The committee commended Student Representative Fradette for his diligence in presenting information to RHA and returning comments to PTAC.

Burns presented revisions to the components of Parking Fees and proposed fines. The materials were discussed. Carroll asked for a motion to go forward with the proposed fines and non-mandatory fees for 2008-09 Biennium. York moved that PTAC recommend the Fees/Fines as proposed and Kack seconded. Motion passed with one opposed, no abstentions. Taylor recommended that at some future point PTAC consider whether 'preferred' parking permits should 'subsidize' the general parking areas and if so, to what level.

Banziger presented the Campus Master Plan. After his presentation he asked each committee member for input on the two plans. A discussion followed. Information on Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design is available on the LEED website at www.usgbc.org. The following general comments were offered:

  • General consensus supported concepts of consolidated vertical solutions (shuttle-linked multimodal facilities) with reasonable interspersed/distributed surface areas.
  • Should consider convenience of ADA parking in addition to technical regulations. Campus should attempt to move toward ADA user friendliness as opposed to just regulatory compliance.
  • Campus should develop in a pedestrian sensitive way but not vehicle prohibited - still need to provide adequate access for service, delivery and users drop-off/pick-ups.
  • Need to consider serving residence hall with closer parking to promote safety.
  • Consider aging of the MSU workforce - proximity where possible.
  • Provide some flexibility for users who must come & go several time per day (for both personal and work-related reasons).
  • Provide a reasonable range of parking alternatives, e.g., close-in, remote, cost options, etc.
  • With ~25 surface lots dispersed around campus today, it promotes inefficient travel/surfing between lots - future vertical solutions should help.
  • Consider how telecommuting might affect need for parking in the future. How will virtual instruction/distance learning affect need for parking?

The committee will continue feedback for the planning board at the January PTAC meeting.

The December meeting has been changed to January 3, 2007.

Members Present: Banziger, Baumbauer, Burns, Carroll, Fradette, Huls, Martin, Putzke, Saunders, Sharp,York
Members Absent: Oudshoorn, Taylor
Guests: Lashaway
The following items were discussed:
Committee record documents, including meeting notes and handout materials, are available at \\opal\ptac. Meeting notes will also be distributed on the listserve. Contact Paul burns if you have any questions or trouble accessing the \\opal\ drive.

A final of the Principles for the Development and Management of MSU's Parking Enterprise and Parking Facilities was presented by Lashaway. We can now use the document as a guide as we proceed forward with parking planning and business management.

Burns distributed a revision to the citation information he had presented at the last meeting. Proposed Parking Fines were discussed.

Burns presented components of Parking Fees. The committee discussed maintenance costs and how we expect to estimate annual and long-term maintenance budgeting.

The Committee will make recommendations at the Nov06 meeting regarding Parking Fines and Fees.

Due to the Thanksgiving holiday, the next meeting will November 29th instead of the 22nd.

April 12, 2006,

Sue reports that the Parking Task Force has not met since her last report.

March 8, 2006,

From CEPAC Minutes - A recommendation has been received by CEPAC that, while the parking garage proposal has been placed on hold, consideration of parking issues generally should not be suspended. CEPAC members agreed with the comment, and our representative on the Parking Task Force, Sue Martin, will follow through with the Task Force.

December 14, 2005,

Note to CEPAC from Jo Oudshoorn, Chair:
In late November Craig Roloff, Walt Banziger and Jo Oudshoorn had a meeting with the Financial Underwriters to continue the discussions of the economic and financial status of funding the proposed garage.

At this meeting Walt Banziger presented a "Statement of Probable Total Project Costs" which had been revised after MSU had received the bids for the SUB renovations. Walt's revised figures - which are still only estimates - strongly suggest that the cost of the proposed garage is beginning to exceed the level of affordability identified in the financial model.

Additional influencing factors are:

  • Anticipated increases in construction costs associated with Katrina, Rita and Wilma,
  • Increasing demand for concrete from China driving concrete costs up,
  • Concrete rationing, and
  • Costs associated with any delay.

These factors had already been discussed and already factored into the financial model. Issues not factored into the model include:

  • Impact of next winter on the construction timeframe due to delay associated with the additional community consultation, ( March BoR, Bid in May, Construction commencing July/August (?)),
  • Ability to hire top quality contractors so late in the construction season and possible quality implications, and,
  • A factor unique to Bozeman; the higher hourly contractor rates for Bozeman as a consequence of the strong demand from Big Sky.

While many of these factors were known and factored into the financial model, the higher than anticipated bid rates for current construction projects pushed us beyond the limits of our financial model and our current assumptions and constraints.

We advised PEC of this situation on 5th December 2005.


We are to make further presentations to PEC in the new year, on the policies that will guide our future decision-making about alternative options.

November 10, 2005,

CEPAC submitted feedback to the Parking Task Force.

November 9, 2005,

(From CEPAC Minutes, unapproved) Genevieve Burmeister, Carol Shannon (who has attended the last two meetings in Sue Martin's absence) and Sara France brought CEPAC up to date on the parking garage project. There has apparently been a break down in communication in that the report of classified input dated October 25, 2005 got lost among a wealth of electronic messages and had not been read by all Task Force members. The Task Force Chair meets with University Governance Council this afternoon to answer further questions of the campus constituencies. CEPAC members continue to have concerns, following its meeting with the Task Force on October 31, and is hopeful of further information this afternoon.

November 3, 2005,

Nnote following CEPAC's meeting with the Parking Task Force on October 31, and the University Governance Council, today:
In response to an invitation to meet with the Parking Task Force, and to offer classified input into the parking garage proposal, CEPAC solicited staff feedback. A report of the findings was delivered to the Task Force Chair, and a meeting was held on October 31. CEPAC is grateful to the members of the Task Force who attended, and gave a lengthy presentation. Some misunderstandings were corrected at the meeting, but CEPAC members continue to have concerns. The subject of the garage was subsequently raised at University Governance Council Steering Committee, where Faculty and Professional Councils and CEPAC further discussed their consitituents' input. It was agreed that specific information would be requested for University Governance Council's meeting (at which many campus constituent groups come together) on November 9.

August 17, 2005,

Extract from CEPAC Minutes:
Sue Martin (CEPAC-nominated classified representative on the Parking Task Force) had previously posed four questions to CEPAC members intended to help the Task Force consider improving campus parking in general. Sue, and Paul Burns, Parking Director, had requested agenda time today to discuss these questions. Genevieve Burmeister suggested that, in order to consider the broader opinions of the classified staff in general, CEPAC could circulate these (or any other) questions to the constituency. Paul considered that the personal thoughts of those present today would be sufficient at this stage. There followed a lengthy discussion of parking, predominently related to the parking garage, including the following issues:

  • size and location - 450-500 parking spaces, on four levels, situated near Johnstone and Hapner halls with entrances off Harrison and 8th (near Cleveland). The site was chosen for various reasons, including proximity to residence halls and the new chemistry building.
  • anticipated use - improved resident parking facilities, particularly for Hapner and Hannon halls, has been a priority of the project. How the parking garage spaces will be allocated has not yet been decided (beyond the provision of 140 "E"-designated spaces, replacing those lost to the construction site) although the design intends inclusion of short-term (possibly metered), reserved, and "S and B"-type parking, reaching as many constituents as possible without diluting access in any one category.
  • security - preliminary considerations include: lighting, glass stairwells, closed circuit TV, police patrol.
  • services - to include elevators (which could be speed-regulated for optimum service), and automatic signs at entrances indicating when the garage is full.
  • parking fees - some garage permits may be costlier than hangtags for regular parking since the facility offers improvements unavailable in existing lots.

Additional discussion focused on the logistics of fairly offering access to spaces in the parking garage. CEPAC members suggested that most methods of payment for parking (other than on a per-use basis) would entail issuing permits on a limited basis. This would obviate the frustration of having paid a higher annual premium but regularly finding the garage full. However, this effectively turns the garage into a form of reserved parking, and CEPAC members recommended that careful consideration then be given to how such parking privileges could be equitably issued. Suggestions included priority for employees with longevity (Mary Engel also suggested that longevity-based parking discounts be considered); and first-come-first-served permit purchase every year rather than the "lifetime" basis under which traditional reserved parking is currently allocated.

Paul said that there are 18-24 months in which to finalize all the necessary logistics for the parking garage, and that a team of experts has been hired to advize.


It was agreed that CEPAC members would send their answers to the Parking Task Force's original questions to Sue Martin ([email protected]), and Paul encouraged further input, on any parking issue, from any employee, at any time ([email protected] or 994 7747). (Also, the design committee will be on campus on August 26, from 9 am - noon [likely in the SUB]).

June 1, 2005,

Sue Martin reports:
No meeting took place this cycle.

May 2, 2005,

Sue Martin reports:
No formal meeting took place this cycle. Instead we held the public forums. I attended one and have only heard that the other two went well with no new information being shared, any way that was shared with me. We can announce that selection committee interviewed 3 Montana Companies to bid on Architecture.(I think) I don't think it was engineering companies. One stood out. I am sure we will hear more details at our next meeting. It was good to see some of the CEPAC members attend as well.

April 18, 2005,

(Staff Bulletin). Hangtags. Starting with fall semester 2005, users of MSU parking lots will use hangtags instead of decals to avoid tickets. The current system of decals doesn't work well when a user drives a different car to campus on different days. With hangtags, a person can drive any car he or she chooses. The hangtag dangles from the mirror. No extra stops at the Police Station or Paylot Kiosk to pick up a hangtag for the day are necessary. Drivers will not have to worry about getting a ticket for driving the car without the decal.

The freedom to choose has a price. There will no longer be second car discounts for anyone. In the past, discounts were available if a family drove more than one vehicle to campus, but now each driver that comes to campus will pay a full share to use MSU's parking facilities. If a driver forgets the hangtag, the user will have to purchase a day hangtag for $2.50 or risk getting a ticket. The police will void the first ticket a user receives for forgetting to utilize the hangtag or forgetting the hangtag in the other car. After that, the full price of a parking ticket will help jolt the user's memory. Questions, concerns, or comments can be sent to [email protected]

MSU schedules public parking forums April 25th and 27th
Bozeman-Montana State University will conduct three public forums focusing on a parking plan for the northeastern quadrant of the MSU campus, near the proposed site of two new campus buildings. The forums will be held from 12:00-2:00 p.m. Monday, April 25th in SUB Ballroom C; 4:00-6:00 p.m. Monday, April 25th in Reid Hall Room 101; and 6:30-8:30 p.m. Wednesday, April 27th in Reid Hall Room 103.

MSU Parking Improvement Task Force will explain the parking plan including the Shortfall of Resident Hall Parking and construction of the new chemistry building and future animal biosciences building. Members of the public as well as the MSU community are invited to attend, ask questions, and share opinions. If you are unable to attend, comments can be submitted to [email protected].

March 28, 2005,

Sue Martin reports: The first meeting this month was cancelled and no meeting happened during spring break. The meeting on 3/28 was very brief with only a very small number of people in attendance. In brief the finance people are crunching numbers and trying to find a way to make sense for 3 story building in the Lewis and Clark Lot south of Johnstone and west of Hapner Hall. Nothing is anywhere near firm or approved. There are some underlying bonds that pay off in the near future which help the bottom line immensely. Jo hopes to have some good financial numbers soon.

February 23 and 24, 2005,

Ppublic forums for information exchange regarding the possibility of constructing a parking garage on campus.

January 24, 2005,

Sue Martin reports:
At the meeting on 1-24 we discussed the planning for gathering information from the staff and faculty very soon. The Student survey is out and we are waiting for information.

There is now some discussion about an option of using the Linfield lot on the easterly half to become the parking lot vs the east lawn south of Culbertson. Surveys (email) will be devised and forwarded soon and additionally we will see open forum around the mid of February. Noon time and about 7Pm The date tossed around is the 23rd. So watch for that.

If you have any hot spot topics that should be relayed back to the communication committee let me know what they are. They are to be in by Wed 27th of Jan.

I have fielded my chem. office and forwarded that much info already and your input will help too.

New business as I write this: Forum is set up for 11-1:30 Feb 23rd and 7-9 24th No place shared but I think it was to be at the sub. If I learn otherwise I'll be back in touch.

If you have any media channels that we may have not thought of please send that along too.


10th January 2005,

Sue Martin copied CEPAC on this report from the Parking Task Force Chair:
Discussion of HKM's estimates for Steel Framed Buildings and Pre cast concrete buildings and looking at various options in terms of levels of parking and basements.

Zack is to provide additional details broken down into a modular format so we can mix and match options such as "basement" , "single levels", any decreased incremental cost for "additional levels" - so that we can get a between idea of realistic costs. Zack is also to confirm some of the itemized amounts such as Caissons and how they vary significant between some of the options.

Discussion of the Draft Proposal paper: Jo walked everyone through the draft proposal paper explaining the rationale and the structure and summary of the flow chart. Jo had a concern that we had two financial models; the cash-flow, and the Parking Operations budget and while they both seemed to support the financial position of a multi story car park Jo felt that a single model would present better to the advisory board. Jo will work on a blended model for the presentation to the advisory board on Wednesday.

Communication Strategy: Walter Metz was unavailable to discuss his Communication Strategy

The committee continued to discuss communication issues: Student Survey - Glenn Puffer & Carina Beck - Carina distributed the student survey responses - which were very interesting. We will get additional copies made available of the rest of the committee. The students' main concerns seemed to be

  • Oversupply of disabled car parking
  • Shortage of supply near the residences
  • 41% of respondents would be prepared to pay extra to build a carpark if they were assured of having a space.
  • Concerns were expressed about safety and the distance between available parking and residences/place of work
  • There were a range of responses about increased parking fees - some are prepared to pay more others are outraged that we would even suggest increasing fees.

Carina will provide updated of survey responses at later meetings.

Open Forums - We are getting to the stage where we need to involve the rest of the campus community in open forums and discussions. The Committee decided that Paul Burns, Robert Putzke and Jo Oudshoorn should essentially be the lead facilitators as they were the people with most knowledge - and other members should be able to offer visible support. It was noted, with reference to support roles, that provision of inconsistent info (based on lack of specific knowledge) had the potential to be more damaging to this process than to have three people with consistent info. Jo, Paul and Robert to meet and discuss.


Jo made a presentation to the Board based on the draft proposal and further revised financial figures. Discussions were on the issues of :

  • Potentially increasing demand - not finally approved but on the horizon that will have an impact on demand in this quadrant.
  • The optimal cost per space range - it was felt that the appropriate cost per space range was $11,000 - $15,000 - the board was uncomfortable about the reliability of any lower amount.


13th December 2004,

Sue Martin copied CEPAC on this report from the Parking Task Force Chair:
Facilities Planning Quonset
Communication Strategy - Walter - unavailable
Walter is developing a communication strategy addressing both aspects of seeking constituent input and providing information to the campus, and the various planning and approval bodies.
To date, we have advised the faculty Council of our work and have invited input from the Chemistry department.

Student Survey - Carina/Glenn
We have also organized a student survey to seek input from student who live in the residences.


CEPAC Feedback - Sue Martin
CEPC have raised concerns about the construction workers and equipment impinging on car park availability during the construction of the Chemistry building and the car park. Robert Putzke advised that Paul Burn, the Parking Manager, would be quite stringent in ensuring that the impact would be kept to a minimum. Jo Oudshoorn advised that she would advise Bob Lashaway of CEPAC concerns. (Consultation after the meeting with Cecelia Vaniman indicated that the proposed staging area for the new building is on the north side of the grass area and not in the lot itself. The only impact on the lot would be the loss of 10-20 spaces due to actual construction in the SE corner of the East Linfield Lot)

WTI - Data Collection WTI personnel including Susie Lassacher provided advice about the cost associated with the "Ground Hog" data collection device. Unfortunately the cost was higher than previously anticipated. Susie was asked to get a rough quote to assist in decision making. ( This has proved to be difficult from the vendors perspective. Susie has been advised that we do not want to pursue this option at present)

Additional Information from activities after the last meeting
There have been discussions between Parking and OFS about changes to the basic garage concept. The proposal has changed from a 2 storey structure to a three story structure. A small informal subcommittee has formed and has considered issues such as

  • Demand - including changes to street parking as well as the changes in East Linfield
  • Financial capability - we are currently building a funding model based on a 3 story garage @ $11,000 - $15,000 per space funded by an Intercap loan @ 5.5% over 10 years.

I will get a copy of this proposal out as soon as I have finished it - I would prefer to discuss this with you before I have the Meeting with Facilities Advisory Board on the 12 Jan.


November 23, 2004,

Sue Martin was unable to attend the meeting but reported the agenda to have included progress reports and a draft proposal with respect to prioritized issues.