Parking Board Minutes and Agendas - 1997
No Agendas for 1997 could be located. Below are the only minutes for two meetings in 1997 that could be located!
Parking Board Meeting
Wednesday, April 2, 1997
Members Present at the Meeting
Phyllis Bailey, CEC Member, Acting Chairperson
Julie Byrnes, COPE Member
Darrin Simpson, New Academic Student Member
Kevin Schroeder, Academic Student Member
Kevin Claver, Graduate Student Member
Harriett Miller, Vo-Tech Student Member
Jason Miskin, Ex-Officio Member
Non-Members Present at Meeting
Stephen Chatterton, Director Public Safety
Terrilee Hancock, Parking/Security Supervisor
Carol Prescott, Public Safety (taking minutes)
The meeting was called to order at 3:15 p.m..
Jerry Spadafore, Chairman of Parking Board, was out of town, and could not make the meeting. Phyllis Bailey was asked to Chair the meeting.
I. New Towing Contract
Terrilee Hancock said this was being discussed the other day, and one of the things that was brought up, was that during one of tows, was in regards to the tow company accepting credit cards. This has never happened in the past, it's never been part of the bidding process for the tow companies, that they accept a credit card. What happens is that if the person being towed comes during the time of the tow, and they want to pay for the tow with a credit card. If they could do that, it would help avoid a hassle for us, and also avoid a hassle for the person being towed. Because then if they don't have the cash right on hand, and the tow company won't accept a credit card, then they'll tow the car. But if they will accept a credit card, then they still have to pay, but the tow company can accept the credit, and the car won't actually be towed.
Phyllis thought it would probably help the tow company, too. Simplify things for them. Terrilee said we had checked in to how long it had been since we had bid out a tow company, and it's been about four years. We were thinking we would bid it out again this summer, and we would put that into the contract this year, that the tow company would accept credit cards. Phyllis felt it was a really good idea. Darrin Simpson made the motion we bid out with the stipulation they accept credit cards.
Terrilee stated that in the past the criteria for the bids, of course, has always been the low bid, but also the response time. We would just add to that criteria that they accept credit cards.
Kevin Claver seconded the motion.
Kevin Schroeder wanted further discussion on this issue. He stated he had heard a couple of other comments on the towing. He heard complaints about the current towing company that the person went to the address on the business card and it was somebodies home. Then they were sent to another spot to get their car. Terrilee stated that doesn't go with the bid. What we're proposing is making up a card of our own that we hand out, because the person will always contact us.
Darrin Simpson said he knew it used to be, that the city code for towing must be posted in our lots that we tow in, as well as the number where the vehicle is reached. So if we put this out to bid and Company X currently has the bid, we give the bid to Company Y, do we have a situation where we have to spend some money to replace the phone numbers on all of those signs? Terrilee stated she thought the signs referred them to the Public Safety number, then our people tell them, we post a sign. If we have tows, and they haven't contacted us prior to the close of business, we have signs we've put in the entrance door window, on the door, and on the drive-through window.
Kevin Schroeder's other question was the towing company's relative closeness to the University, so a student doesn't have to get a taxi across town. Terrilee stated we are concerned about the response time. If a person's vehicle has been towed, and they contact us because they have no other way to get to their car, we will take them. We always take them. It's not published or advertised, but we've never refused to take them to their cars. Stephen Chatterton stated that if the Parking Board would like to make that a part of our normal procedure, we would be glad to advertise it and let everybody know. It was stated maybe not advertise it, but let the person being towed know.
Stephen had some input for the tow company credit card issue. He has discussed it with the tow truck company we have now, and some other people. They've expressed some concern over it that we should discuss. Tow companies have problems with accepting checks, and with accepting credit cards. If you look at it from their perspective, people who have their cars towed are not in a very good frame of mind, and are pretty much irritated over that. The tow companies have a serious problem with people stopping checks immediately and canceling credit cards. They'll give them a credit cards, and they'll walk out the door and go right to the phone, and cancel the credit card or the check. Their experience with this credit cards has not been very good. They're very careful about who the accept credit cards from, or who they accept checks from. Phyllis thought it was a hassle to cancel a credit card.
Darrin Simpson, said that the idea they're very careful raises a red flag to him. They idea of them being selective, made it seem like perhaps if you were a 19 year old student they wouldn't take the card, but if you were a 30 year old adult male staff member, they would take a card. Darrin said that when he hears selective, if they're going to take cards they would need to take everyone's cards. The issue is the company takes cards or they don't. He would hate to see a company that takes some cards and not others. We would probably just get ourselves into all kinds of trouble. He stated he wasn't sure taking cards is the answer with the concerns brought up, but he thought it should be one way or the other.
Stephen stated he thought it was a business practice based on years of experience and a list of criteria that they have probably developed as a result of being burned. As Stephen understood it in discussing it, a lot of it's based on past experience, and a list of criteria that they use. Not the kind of criteria your talking about, which is prejudicial. But the kind of criteria that they've developed from experience in knowing who they feel they can accept certain types of payment from, and who they know they're absolutely going to have problems with. They get burned like any business. People they feel meet they're criteria, and they go ahead and do, and they still get stung. That's probably part of the business. That's some of their concerns that tow truck operators have expressed on credit cards and checks.
Stephen stated the bidding contract expires this year. It will go out for bid. If we decide to put some other stipulations on it or criteria we can do that in July. Phyllis wanted to know if he just talked to the current contract owner or did you talk to others. Stephen had talked to two, but primarily the current contractor. Custom Towing does not have a strong objection to accepting credit cards. They'll look at whatever bid criteria we have, as well as any other vendor. If we feel we want to change the bid criteria, we can certainly do that. There are just some things we need to take into consideration.
Phyllis Bailey wanted to know if we'd thought about debit cards. Stephen stated we were not prepared for that in the system. Darrin Simpson explained that most debit cards function in an either/or situation. Darrin stated he and his wife had set up a credit card system, and if your debit card is through VISA, no one cares. If you are on a telephone line credit card system, which everyone in the free world is now, it doesn't matter if it's a debit card or what. If it's got the VISA or Master Card symbols, they don't know, and they don't care which one it comes out of. At the grocery store, the reason they make a distinction there is because major banks with major groceries stores, give the grocery stores a kickback when it debit instead of credit, because they're not paying out the credit charges. Jason Miskin stated it costs the business a lot, they loose out a lot more when a person uses a credit card.
Darrin Simpson stated that with what Mr. Chatterton has presented with the idea of this going out to bid, he was comfortable withdrawing his motion at this point.
Kevin Schroeder had a question, if students are towed at $50.00, how much does the actual towing increase that to? Stephen explained that our contract is $35.00, and he thought there was a $4.00 fee per day storage.
Phyllis reiterated the motion was rescinded, and just have the contract go out for bid the way it has been. Stephen wanted to know if they would like to discuss the towing criteria. He stated time and cost were the key issues in the past. Bill & Mikes is close, but they were significantly higher per tow. He thought that Bill & Mike, Denny's and Custom bid on the last one. They all felt they could meet the time criteria, but they were all significantly higher in cost than Custom. Terrilee stated Custom was actually taking a loss, because they only charged us $35.00 not matter what equipment they had to bring. With the other ones a tow could go clear up to $90.00 depending on what equipment they had to bring. Custom was willing to do it all, no matter what type of tow for $35.00. Darrin reiterated that the criteria at this time was response time and price. Terrilee stated they also had to be insured and bonded. With it going out to bid the price could go higher.
Kevin Schroeder had a question about what happens when Custom Towing has already been called in and the person shows up. Stephen stated that was a very touchy situation with us. Basically, what we do is require that they wait until Custom Towing arrives, and they work out whatever arrangements they need to with the tow company. Terrilee stated if we can stop the tow in time so Custom won't charge anybody we will. But if somebody has to pay Custom, then once they are called and have been dispatched, it's between the person who's being towed and Custom. We are out of it. Otherwise, we get stuck with the tow fee.
Kevin felt it was a very touchy situation when a security person is standing there telling the person they can't get their car until the towing company comes. Darrin asked Stephen Chatterton in his personal/professional opinion, are we at $50.00 towing, are we really freeing up the parking problem, are we making a big difference for one; and two is it worth the added hassle, conflict and grief that we're getting. Stephen said he didn't think that towing was ever worth the hassle that we as office staff get. The other question asked, Stephen stated since the tow policy has been in effect we've towed approximately 5-6 cars, and the psychological affect that has, at least from a little bit of our experience in J Lot particularly. We've towed a couple of cars out of there and a couple of cars out of A Lot. That certainly sends a message to other people who now are more careful. On the other side of that there's one kid we've towed three times.
Darrin wanted to know if we were actually having less problems now with parking. Are we having less complaints from J Lot. He stated obviously not in A Lot, as we had Public Safety that sat there for three days. Phyllis said she noticed a lot less cars without stickers in A Lot. Stephen stated that was a reaction to a problem that was a unique situation. We felt that a short-term approach to that would be to put somebody there and not try to stop everybody that comes in, but to have a presence there primarily. There have been some problems with the ticket writers that we've addressed to overcome some of the professionalism that they exhibited there. We didn't want to set up a check booth like some universities have. We tried to have something in between that. We had our people there that were writing tickets, they were a presence. He felt it seemed to have worked. Phyllis Bailey stated she didn't feel the tow policy had been in effect long enough to tell or show whether it's really having an affect.
Terrilee stated she'd been here 16 years, and in her personal and professional opinion she didn't care whether we towed another car from this University. Her personal experience with it is that first off all, towing is not a punishment. Some people look at it as a punishment, it is not a punishment. The intent of towing a car is for compliance to the regulations. In the years that she had been here, she had never seen towing cars enough compliance to make a difference. When you add that into the hassle we have to take for each individual tow, the officers that are involved in the actual tow, the people in the office that are involved in taking the phone calls from the person who has been towed, the only difference is when we get our money. We're always going to get our money. It's just whether we get it now or at fee payment. This was her own personal opinion.
Stephen noted that many universities do it, and swear by it. Most of the universities in Utah, they tow 500 cars a year. They swear by it being effective. Stephen said we're willing to try and do our best to do our job, the best way we can. We've developed a list of criteria that all of our people have to check off on before we tow a car, so we cut down on incidents of towing somebody we shouldn't. We're developing a system to make it a little less painful, but still.
Kevin Schroeder wanted to go back to the question he asked before about the officer parking his car behind a vehicle to be towed. He wanted to know if we could tell the person the tow truck's already been dispatched, but that person doesn't have $35.00, they'll pay for it but it will go onto their parking fines. Stephen stated that if that's something the Parking Board feels is workable we can do that, but then he wasn't sure whether we could do that or not. Ms. Prescott stated that puts the responsibility on us, instead of the person who's parking illegally and has that many fines. Phyllis agreed that put it back in the traffic people's laps, rather than keeping it on the individual. Terrilee stated we can't anyway, because we're not allowed to take credit.
Phyllis Bailey asked Stephen if he had talked to Ruth. He stated he had. She was still contemplating all the things we had talked about, and indicated she would get back to him, but has not yet.
II. Year in Review (Changes for the year)
Kevin Schroeder said he and Darrin were leaving office April 21st, and they wanted to go over the changes that were recommended by the Parking Board this year. To his recollection the one that made was the towing policy. Stephen said another significant issue would be the disabled parking. Stephen said the President's office had agreed to that, they just hadn't sent us an acknowledgment. They had agreed with everything we sent except the $1.00 fee for guest passes. Stephen thought that one was just a misunderstanding, and that Darrell Buffaloe was going back to them on that one. It wasn't our intent for all visitors, but just assess a fee to faculty, staff and students who are parking on campus on a temporary basis. We have a fair number of students who ride the bus down from Idaho Falls one or two days a week, and they car pool, and they want to park on campus. They want to park on lower campus rather than in the free parking. Right now, we're giving them a free parking pass. We want to charge a $1.00 fee to faculty, staff and students for these kinds of circumstances. Faculty may come on campus for a short period of time, and want to park, so if they would get a day pass. Julie Byrnes wanted to know if this would apply to kids coming up to take placement tests. Stephen said this would not apply to them. Some members wondered how we would tell which ones are students or faculty. We generally ask, and they are pretty honest about telling us. Terrilee also mentioned after they've been coming in a few times, the office people would recognize them.
Media permits have not been set up yet at this time. Notification of Sale of Permits to faculty/staff was discussed and the Parking Regulation publication. Kevin had a question on the following, "When parked diagonally, the front wheels must be against the curb."; He thought that was rather amusing. Darrin explained that in some parking lots, you're supposed to enter in a certain direction, but not everybody obeys that, so if you have your front tire on the curb, you really have to enter in that direction. His guess was that is the reason for this regulation.
Kevin Schroeder then had another question about the towing policy. He had a student ask him about parking on the quad. His understanding was that if you park on grass or something like that, it's a $15.00 fine. It was confirmed you can get a $15.00 fine for parking on the sidewalk/grass. Stephen said we would probably tow a car parked in the quad, unless there was prior approval for that. Darrin asked if this was even for those with fines under $50.00. It was explained that there are other things you can get towed for, where you don't have to have any fines. Such as cars blocking traffic, parked in fire lanes, etc. Stephen said we would tow for other things and actually have. We try to be careful about that, and get them to move, but if push came to shove, we would tow the car, and have.
Kevin Schroeder stated the next thing he had was as this was his last meeting as Student Body President, he wanted to leave with feeling he'd been able to change parking, which is still a concern of his and many other students. He stated they had actually taken a vote during the elections, as to whether student preferred all general parking or the way it is now. Kevin stated 75% voted for general parking across the whole campus. He felt he had significant student support for it. However, he did understand the concerns of faculty, and in trying to reach a compromise he came up with a few ideas he wanted to pass out. He started out by sending around the current map, then a two-page list of what the changes include, and the next map showing what the lots would look like with his proposed changes.
Kevin proceeded to go through the proposal step-by-step. With Lot A they wanted to leave some reserved parking around Frazier, and then open up the front part of Frazier for general parking, which actually took out 128 reserved parking spaces. In Lot B, on the left hand side, about 104 spaces, make that reserve parking. They would leave C1, C2 and D1 as they currently are, which is Administration and behind the Library. Lot E which is directly across the street from the Library, to convert that into general parking, which is 52 spaces. All the campus housing parking, leave as is. Lot H1, which is up at the Education area, to take that one out. And Lot I, which is over behind Colonial Hall, there were 10 spaces that were added to one of the rows, at the beginning of the school, basically just take those 10 out that are in the Life Science. So if you were driving through from the Credit Union side towards the Library side, everything for parking on the right would remain as reserved. Lot J, which is up at Applied Tech, all the road parking and the area around the road parking, make that general, and along with that, there's some metered parking along one of the roads, 14 spaces, if you were to enter in from Memorial Drive and go left up the very first row, you have parallel parking on the left, and meter parking on the right, basically just take out the 14 meters there, but leave all the other meters. Julie Byrnes asked if he was talking about the meters in front of the RFC Building right in front? Kevin and Darrin explained it was the ones along the road, or fence. Julie stated those meters are visitor parking, and that they recruit students up there at Student Services and there needed for those visitors. Kevin stated he was more than willing to work with that. Lots L, M, O-2, V, W and Y that are general, leave them the way they currently are. Lot T, to revert that lot into general parking, which is 73 spaces, then Lot X south, to make that reserve parking. There's 322 spaces up there, which if you look at the loss in reserved parking across campus, the losses are 384 reserved parking spaces, but then between the Lot B gain and the Lot X gain, there's 426 spaces. So there's actually a gain in reserved parking of about 42 spots.
The other thing Kevin wanted to mention is that your basically combining your X1 Lot and your T Lot into that X Lot, because those are both about the same distance from the buildings that they are representing. We'd pretty much be replacing what we took from Lot A with Whittier, so in actuality your only displacing about 120-130 reserved spaces that will be displaced up into the Holt Arena area. Kevin stated he wanted to explain the reasons they've look at this. Through the election process they did vote 75% in favor of going all general. But he said he understood the need for reserved parking, so he wanted to spread out the reserved as the reserved has meant every single spot is the most convenient spot. Faculty and staff's main concern seems to be, "I want my own spot." They still have their own spot. There are still loading zones if they have books and papers they need to bring to each building, so he felt they had taken care of all the concerns that faculty/staff has basically come up with.
Darrin said with that he would like to move to approve the changes in the current parking structure. Jason Miskin 2nded.
Phyllis noted we had a motion and a second, and asked for discussion. Julie Byrnes stated she was there representing COPE, the Council Of Professional Employees, and she said she did not feel comfortable voting on this without having the opportunity to go back and discuss it with the people she's representing.
At this point, Harriett Miller apologized for being late but wanted to know who Kevin was, and who he represented. Kevin stated he represented the students. She wanted to know if he had been appointed. He stated he appointed himself. Stephen explained to Harriett that Kevin was the current ASISU Student Body President.
Darrin Simpson stated he'd been involved a little bit with Kevin in doing this, and with others. Some of the other people they've been involved with are faculty, and those who had serious concerns, when they originally presented this. He remembered some of the original comments, even from the original meeting and Dr. Denner, and several since then, it was not the idea of where the reserved lots were, but should we have one. There needs to be a specific parking place so that when people come to campus, those who are involved in faculty/staff activities, that need to be in and out frequently, that they know they have the ability to park, they don't have to hunt and look for a parking space. Whether or not that's a valid concern, he would say it is. The other main concern that we talked with a lot of faculty, that feel this is somehow a privilege, mainly he spoke to faculty, but some staff and administration, that definitely feel it's a privilege to have a reserved lot space, and don't want that taken away. He said he didn't understand privileges entirely, but he thought this was a very conscious effort to make sure that reserved lots not only stay, but they stay approximately close to where it's easy access as is Whittier, and the alley's actually closer to both the Fine Arts building and the Museum building, and they're definitely closer to the Student Union building, than is A Lot. Darrin stated sometimes he thought some of the tension they've received is a matter of territorial rights, which is frustrating. However, the largest concern he's heard all year from students is parking. He stated he firmly did not believe we had a parking problem on campus, we have a thousand more spaces at any time than we have vehicles here, that's the reality. By both utilizing the Holt Arena, etc., and many students are utilizing the reduced parking up there, as well as faculty and staff. He state he guessed what this came down to was if we have the spots, then we don't really have a parking resource problem, we have a time management problem, or we have a problem of where the spots are located. He felt an awful lot of thought and effort had been put into this as to not ....... currently have reserved spaces, yet at the same time try and equal it out a little bit. He thought it was a really good solution.
Terrilee Hancock didn't see where they had addressed it, but she wondered if they had thought about the possibility of how this might change the fee structure, because right now, faculty and staff are paying $75.00 to park in close proximity. She was wondering how they were going to feel about paying $75.00 to park out in B Lot. Phyllis Bailey stated this would be one of her concerns too. Terrilee felt one thing that would have to go with this is possibly a change in the fee structure to make it also more equal. Maybe raise the fee for students and lower the fee for faculty and staff. Kevin stated that in the vote that was taken of students, they asked if they agreed with increasing the cost of the general permit by $5.00 to make up for any differences. So students were willing to go up to a $5.00 increase. But there should be some differential in the cost, because it's reserved, and they still have a guaranteed spot in that parking area, where you don't have that with general. Phyllis Bailey stated you don't have that guaranteed spot in reserved one anymore, because some people park whether they have a reserved permit or not. Darrin felt the easiest way to find out if the faculty/staff would still pay the $75.00 was to make the changes and find out. Terrilee said that's why she felt it should be taken back to the different constituencies. Phyllis Bailey agreed, she would not feel comfortable voting for the Classified Employees without showing them the plans and giving them an outline of it. She felt that would be wrong. Julie Byrnes then asked that they not take out the 14 meter spaces in J Lot. Darrin Simpson said they would accept an amendment to the proposal to retain those 14 metered spaces in J Lot as visitor spaces.
Phyllis Bailey reminded us there was a motion on the floor, but asked if the student members were objectionable to tabling the issue for a month or two, whatever it takes so they could get back and talk to their people. Darrin stated that, not to be adversarial, but he felt he would be comfortable with what that response would be, and having been abused over this since they brought it up the first time, he would be comfortable with what that response would be. He would be willing to not table it, just as a matter of his feeling that it would be prolonging the situation that would inevitably come down to those who want this, and those who don't.
Julie Byrnes said she felt her job on this Board was to keep the COPE members well informed, and she thought they would get input. She felt the response of faculty and staff was just as important as the response from students. She said she thought the students were very important, but faculty staff response is also important. Darrin felt they had done this all year, and in fact what they spent time doing when this was originally looked at, it was a mission impossible, which it is. They've seen they don't want to make everything general. He felt they'd taken a considerable amount of time. In fact, they asked all faculty staff to send their suggestions in on E-Mail, etc., and they have taken a substantial amount of information, all of which has said they want a specific space. No one has made a clear argument that they want a specific space in a specific location. Only that they have a guaranteed space. Darrin stated this could be changed. If there were problems of whether or not this isn't functional for Applied Tech with the 14 meters, but overall, they have taken very seriously the input they've received, and they've received a substantial amount of input.
Phyllis Bailey objected because it was not on the agenda, and she thought that was unfair, because the people that she represents have a right to know what they're proposing before we ever come out and say yea. She didn't feel there was anything wrong with it, because she thought they'd done a good job in working it out, but she did feel her people deserved the opportunity, just like the students did, of saying yes or no, this is going to be a workable plan. But she stated he was the one that made the motion, and if they were bent on doing there was nothing they could do about it.
Darrin stated he didn't want to seem argumentative, but he did think that there comes a point when this Board ultimately will have to go on and decide if this is workable. Faculty Member A, Staff Member B or Student C may see this lot is a problem because it doesn't fit their specific needs. Ultimately, we're going to have to decide as a Board what changes are to be made. The Board structured as it is, any of these changes we make day are subject to change tomorrow. That's how the Board works. Terrilee reiterated the Board only makes recommendations. Darrin agreed with this and stated that if it was a yes recommendation, it was far from ready to be implemented. Darrin moved that we accept the recommendations as presented by Kevin Schroeder, with the exception of the visitor meter spaces at Applied Technology. It was 2nded by Kevin Claver. Kevin stated the only concern he had about tabling this is the fact of when the next meeting would be, as the next regular meeting would be during finals week, unless we could make some other arrangements for a meeting at some other time.
Phyllis Bailey said it was just too bad they hadn't been given the opportunity to see this and take a good look at it before. That in itself will influence her vote, because she hadn't had the opportunity to look at it. Julie Byrnes agreed with Phyllis. Darrin Simpson stated that was something they could look at, and in fact, if he were to ask at this point, if we were to meet on this in two weeks, what do we think would be different. Phyllis said she honestly couldn't tell him, because as she said, she hadn't had a change to take a good look at it. She said they had been working with it, they knew what they were doing. Julie Byrnes stated there were other people that she goes back to, that are going to have a closer idea about how parking is going to affect different programs. She said she knows how it will affect Special Programs, she jumped right in with the meters, but there may be other problems that someone else knows about, that she doesn't, and she's supposed to be representing them. She said most of the people she represents would feel they had been railroaded. Phyllis Bailey said so would the Classified Employees, and they might work to overcome it, even though at first glance this looks very fair. She said her personal opinion was that it looked fair, but if the Board voted today to implement this, without anyone seeing it other than the Board, it won't happen. Julie Byrnes said she would vote no at this time. Whereas, if we come back together in two (2) weeks, and I talk to people, I may be it's a really good plan for us, and she would b tempted to vote yes. Phyllis Bailey stated this was her feeling also, right now she'd probably vote not, but having the opportunity to look at it and present it to CEC, and see what their reaction is. Doing it this way has put them in a real bind.
Darrin Simpson asked if it was reasonable to look at the recommendation today, he knew his feelings, he knew their feelings, and at this point they're concerns, and that if necessary changes need to be made, his guess was that we'd probably be able to meet again, and make changes even before anything had a change to be completely finished. He stated our vote today obviously doesn't put something in concrete forever. It was a constant cycle. As Kevin mentioned this is really going to be probably the last time, in order to make these changes necessary for next year, we have to deal with this issue. Julie Byrnes stated if we're going to change the parking, the fee structure would have to be look at. Darrin didn't think there was a way to project what the fees would be accurately, unless there were changes made. Phyllis said she thought they'd have a real problem with charging $75.00 at Whittier. Darrin said he didn't think there was a way to assess that without making the change. He thought if we polled every single person who currently has a reserved lot pass, the response might not be accurate to whether or not the changes made....purchased. Phyllis wanted to know if that made their vote from the students that they'd be willing to pay $5.00 more, make that anymore valid, is that anymore valid than us saying that we are fairly sure $75.00 at Whittier was too much. If you were to go out and take a poll, she was sure that's what you'd find.
Terrilee stated that as far as this being the last meeting, we can meet as often as we need to meet. That's not something that's written in stone. Darrin stated that to be honest these concerns would be here on the second meeting, third meeting whatever. Julie said she'd feel more comfortable about her vote at the next meeting than she would now. Phyllis stated she would too, because she would then give them the opportunity, and herself, to take a good look at it. Julie said she thought we needed to get faculty/staff reaction. She said to be honest, if the vote goes through, and this all happens, and she doesn't get the chance to warn the people she represents, they will be major league ticked off. If we take some time to inform them about it, their response, although the same arguments will come up, will be a lot less.... Phyllis said she thought this put them in an adversarial position, and they'll think they've been.....It's not going to be very pleasant. Darrin Simpson stated that was a possibility. She thought it was a good plan, but without them having an opportunity to take a good look at it, she quite frankly did not feel good about it.
The issue was then voted on: 4 Ayes, 2 Nays. Julie Byrnes and Phyllis Bailey added they objected to this being voted on, and not being tabled. Kevin Schroeder said please do talk to the people you represent. Phyllis Bailey stated it was a little late now. She said there would be a lot of static. She then asked if there was anything else.
Kevin Schroeder then handed out a copy of the Parking Regulations concerning the Parking Advisory Board, with a change which stated: "The Campus Parking Advisory Board can not recommend policy changes of any type unless the full student membership is present to vote."
Kevin stated the reason for this was because 10 spaces were turned in to I Lot without any student representation at all. He said his intent right now was not to hear this one out. He wanted this to be known that this is a concern, that this is a problem. Carol Prescott reminded them that they are all notified when these meetings are. Jason Miskin moved to add those last two lines to the regulations. Kevin 2nded to discuss. Darrin Simpson said he thought he understood the purpose, and perhaps, he knew the goal, and it wasn't to be one-sided with students. What needs to happen is that with such tense issues as we've just gone over, and will be gone over in the future, he thought maybe what needed to be addressed was that do we want to vote on things that have changing effect on campus when we don't have all of our representatives intact. You sit on the Student Union Advisory Board, the Insurance Advisory Board, the Admissions Committee, one of the great challenges, is getting those present to prepare to make serious decisions. Students, faculty staff have a tendency not to show up to meetings. The problem is, when you make serious decisions, you don't want it to be in a circumstance where a quorum is 4 but the voting membership is 7, and 4 out of 7 people make the decision, and yet that happens consistently. It happens almost every time I've been on any of these Boards. So he wondered if maybe the question is that a quorum is a necessary thing, but he would maybe think there are things to look at as far as whether or not you want an absolute quorum before decisions are made, so that all parties are present. Julie Byrnes said she would recommend representation by all members, but then it's going to deadlock, half the time we're going to show up here, and nothing's going to be accomplished. Kevin asked if we should say even representation? Darrin said that would not be fair, because Classified Employees don't necessarily have the same views as faculty, nor obviously do we, students don't come together. Possibly what we'd look at with this is would be a situation where we'd divide lines and say good guys/bad guys. Darrin said he would contend that if we made to where we had someone representing each of the votes, that we would see things get done, but it would take some disciplining to having people here. One of his biggest frustrations was not getting people to go in response to meetings. He felt that if they knew things could not be done without their presence it my put a little extra pressure on them to have people there. Darrin said he would like to see it say that changes cannot be made without full voting membership of the Board. Phyllis Bailey said she wasn't even sure we could do this. She asked if we had By Laws. Carol Prescott said no. She said since they were only an advisory board there were no by laws. Phyllis thought that as an advisory board, you probably don't need them. Someone stated the Pond Student Union Advisory Board had by laws, so an advisory board can have by laws. This advisory board does not. Stephen said this Board had discussed it, and he thought there were some that had been drawn up, but never voted on. Carol Prescott will see if she can find them.
Phyllis asked if we were ready to vote. Julie Byrnes stated the amended version was to have full membership of the Board be present to vote on recommended policy changes. Darrin Simpson said he felt Jason was comfortable with this so there was no reason to vote on this one. We can leave it as it stands. Kevin Schroeder said he just wanted to make sure that this is recognized in the future, as 10 spots were changed from general to reserve without any student vote. Phyllis Bailey stated that never came up at a Parking Board meeting. Kevin stated it was in last years meetings. Darrin asked Mr. Chatterton if there was a meeting. Stephen stated there was.
Kevin Schroeder said the last thing he had was with now reserved permits are sent out in spring, or faculty have all spring and summer to get them, it is his feeling that by the time classes start, reserved faculty/staff have had ample chance to pick up their permits. He believed right now it was set that around October 15 students have a chance to buy permits for reserved lots. It was explained that it's three weeks after school starts, we sell reserved lot permits to students, if available. Kevin said his concern was that you sell these three weeks into school, most students who would want them, have probably already paid for their general permit. Do we do anything that would upgrade the general to a reserved permit at that time? Carol Prescott stated three weeks after school starts they can purchase them, and they only have to pay the difference. This is published in newsletters, etc. Kevin said that he did not have any other concerns then.
Kevin had one last comment. He said to please come back to the next meeting with concerns of your constituency, and we would address those. Darrin stated everyone wanted a happy compromise. Phyllis stated she thought they'd already defeated that one.
Terrilee Hancock said one thing she'd kind of like to bring up here. It states on the Agenda, "Items that need to be added to the agenda must be submitted no later than 24 hours prior to the meeting." One of the reasons this stipulation is on here is so that everybody will be aware prior to any meeting what is going to be discussed. Darrin stated Kevin was on the agenda for Year in Review. The others stated it was not clear at all about Parking changes. Phyllis stated that in actuality it's going to be called pretty sneaky. Jason wanted to ask how many things change during the summer or other times that the students don't. It was stated we don't meet during the summer. Jason said there were other times.
Phyllis Bailey asked if there was anything else. Jason Miskin wanted to know when our next meeting would be. Darrin stated he would call for a meeting, because he wanted to hear these concerns. Ms. Prescott said it was up to them, when they wanted it. Darrin said he would move that we make the meeting prior to the first Wednesday of May. Terrilee asked Phyllis and Julie when their groups had their meetings. Julie said the COPE meeting is the first Wednesday of every month, but she would send copies out post haste to tell them what's happened. Darrin asked when could we meet that would be acceptable. Phyllis stated CEC meets tomorrow, and don't be anywhere near the Fine Arts Building. Darrin wanted to know what was two weeks from today. The date was April 16th. Darrin said if that was acceptable with those who need to be here's schedule. Darrin wanted to know if two weeks was enough time to get notice out to all the members on the Board. Ms. Prescott said she could. Terrilee asked them to let us know if we will need a bigger room for this next meeting. Darrin said he would probably recommend it now. Phyllis Bailey stated, when the Faculty Senate hears about this, it's really going to get hot. Phyllis stated that she thought if they had been willing to table it and let them find out about, you still might have gotten what you wanted.
Another meeting was scheduled for April 16, 1997 at 3:00 p.m.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 4:30 p.m.
Parking Board Meeting
Wednesday, May 14, 1997
Members Present at the Meeting
Jerry Spadafore, Academic Faculty Member, Chairperson
Phyllis Bailey, CEC Member
Julie Byrnes, COPE Member
Deb Pein, Applied Tech. Faculty Member
Shane Ostermeier, ASISU President
David Goddard, ASISU Vice-President
Harriett Miller, Vo-Tech Student Member
Margo McClelland, to be Ms. Byrnes COPE replacement for next year.
Non-Members Present at Meeting
Stephen Chatterton, Director Public Safety
Terrilee Hancock, Parking/Security Supervisor
Carol Prescott, Secretary
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. Minutes from last meeting were approved
New members were introduced. Jerry Spadafore wanted to know if Shane and David would be the student representatives, or if they were pinch hitting until they nominated someone. They said they would all three be voting members for now. Harriett Miller said they could not be voting members per the Parking Regulations. Harriett quoted the regs as saying "the ASISU President or his appointee and other members of the student and faculty/staff Appeals Committee are ex-officio members." Shane stated ex-officio does not determine voting privileges, it means you are on the board by nature of your position. You can be either or depending on the bylaws of the committee. This committee has no bylaws. Jerry said what we should do to be consistent with the breakdown we usually follow, and that is there are two student representatives, so Harriett would be one vote, and Shane or David would have another vote.
It was explained to Jerry that there was 1 Grad Student, 2 Academic Students and 1 Applied Tech Student. So there is a total of 4 student members on the Parking Advisory Board. David Goddard stated this has been the tradition in the absence of bylaws, and the academic students does not state it can or cannot be the President or Vice-President. By nature of their position, this does not exclude them from being those academic students. It would be by appointment of Shane and whoever he sees fit.
Throughout the summer Shane and David will be making the appointments to this Board. It was decided no other meetings would be held during the summer, since most students and faculty/staff would be gone then. Phyllis stated about the only thing we could do was start work on the bylaws. She felt we should wait until the fall to put together an Ad Hoc Committee. Jerry also stated we wanted the Student Senate and the Faculty Senate to participate in this process.
Jerry also stated his term was expired and Alvin Sherman would be replacing him.
I. Bylaws For The Parking Advisory Board
Jerry Spadafore stated we should tentatively formulate some bylaws and maybe let the Student Senate and Faculty Senate both look at them, and see if they are consistent with their bylaws. David Goddard said they had access to other bylaws such as the Student Union Advisory Board, and other Committees to use as examples in establishing the bylaws for the Parking Board. Jerry stated we had copies of bylaws from the Safety Committee and the Psychology Club to get some ideas from.
Jerry felt we should not actually form the bylaws today. Most members felt the Membership of the Board was O.K. Jerry felt maybe the faculty was under-represented. There has only recently been a problem with the composition, because of the lack of bylaws. We need to make sure the agendas are clear, and make sure the agenda gets to members, in writing as soon as possible, before the meeting. Shane&Dave felt that after the agenda went out, nothing should be added. Harriett felt that if something really pressing came up we should have the leeway to add an agenda item. Carol Prescott stated she tried to get the agenda out at least a week before. Julie Byrnes stated that if agenda items are added, that the first thing we do is discuss the extra agenda item. Shane stated he's never been on a committee where an item couldn't be added. A lot of times when a committee meets, they move to add such an item. The item can't be added unless the body votes to add that item. He felt that would be the easiest solution. Jerry stated maybe an item could be presented, discussed but not voted on until the next meeting. Shane also stated that some committees will actually table a new item that is brought up, for about a week.
Phyllis Bailey thought Julie's idea, you can add anything you want to the agenda when you get to the meeting, as far as new business is concerned, but then, however you want to say it, it has to be tabled or whatever. You don't vote on it until the next meeting when you've had a chance to talk to your constituency, and look it over.
Jerry asked who was in favor of saying "Agenda items can be acted upon at the next meeting. New Business that was not on the agenda may be presented and discussed, but voting will be postponed until the next meeting." Phyllis Bailey thought a deadline for agenda items was important. Jerry stated we could come up with a deadline for the agenda to be mailed out. Shane suggested you can add something to the agenda and it can be voted on that day if 2/3 of the voting body says it can be. Julie stated she would prefer a unanimous vote. Many others did too. Shane felt this could bog the committee down. Phyllis stated she was concerned about not having it on the agenda, and having something come up like the last mess, and being outvoted whether it's right, wrong or indifferent. Jerry felt two-thirds was a pretty strong ratio to have.
Shane stated we got the agendas way in advance, before 24 hours of this meeting. He could have called yesterday at 2:59 and added an agenda item for today's meeting, and those of you here would not have known about it. Carol Prescott stated we would have called them, every member.
Harriett was concerned about how long it was going to take to get the bylaws made. Phyllis Bailey made a suggestion that each of us write down a few bylaws, take a look at some that we have, and bring them to the next meeting, and be prepared to work this out at the next meeting. Harriett felt we better have something set in place before school starts, so we're not stumbling around trying to get these things cleaned up. She felt we needed to have these as soon as possible. Terrilee asked if she would like to chair a committee to adopt bylaws over the summer. Harriett felt committees created retirement positions for some people, and felt we should be able to do this ourselves. Julie felt two or three people could get together over the summer and come up with a decent set of bylaws.
Stephen Chatterton stated that to lay this to rest, the Parking Office can develop some bylaws, will give them to Darrell for his input, and then will present them to you at the next Board meeting. We'll even send them out ahead of time. Everyone thought this was a great idea. Harriett made a motion to have this put into effect. Phyllis seconded the motion. Jerry asked for discussion. Jerry said the advantage he found in this procedure was that the Parking Office dealt with the nuts and bolts, and the Advisory Board comes and goes. Then with Darrell Buffaloe it all falls at his doorstep, and Jerry would like to see him involved. And it gives us a base to start. Harriett suggested that anyone who has some bylaws for other committees submit them to the Parking Office to get ideas.
With no further discussion they voted 7-0 in favor.
II. Ad Hoc Committee for Campus Parking
Jerry stated that as he understood it the Ad Hoc Committee is to re-examine parking on campus, make a recommendation to the Parking Advisory Board, and then make the recommendations to Darrell Buffaloe. David Goddard moved to table until, as there will be new members in the fall, and they should be able to deal with this issue then. Tabled until fall.
III. Selling/Issuing Reserved Lot Permits to Faculty/Staff
IV. When to Sell Rserve Lot Permits to Students
Stephen stated there were two issues we needed to discuss. The proposal we made in the fall concerning issuing Faculty Staff permits May 1 as created a bit of a problem in the parking office. We sent the letter out to faculty/staff to sell the permits in May, and we've had some communication back stating we're cheap, money grubbing people. We've had people demanding refunds. Phyllis stated it was in New & Notes. Stephen said for our office it's worked out rather well. We've already sold most of the lots at this time.
Jerry had a question regarding a portion of the Parking Regulations where it states that only faculty/staff can purchase reserved parking permits, and students actually have no access to reserved parking. So maybe the students have a moot point here. Stephen stated it's not our practice. We do make them available to the students.
Stephen stated that this year we would not make any changes to the expiration dates to the parking permits. One of the problems we've created with everyone buying them now, they've got two permits. Stephen stated our feeling is that we don't care, they could use their new one now if they want. Normally in the summer we don't have a serious problem with parking. Shane wanted to know if it was worth it for our office to be doing it now. Stephen stated yes, it's been easier, and we won't have as many people coming in during August. Plus for faculty/staff who are gone in the summer this is more convenient. We are also issuing them right away, because we do not want hold onto the checks until August. Some of the people are complaining because with a change in expiration dates, they feel they're getting cheated, and should receive a refund. All members agreed it was only a one-time problem. Phyllis felt the letter that came with it was not very clear, and if there had been more of an explanation, you wouldn';t have had as many complaints. Stephen stated we were prepared to sending out another letter to clarify the issues. Phyllis stated she talked to Terrilee about this, because she was also confused. She got half a dozen different stories because they would call the Parking Office, and everyone would come back with a different story. Phyllis felt the first letter could have been better written. Linda Tobias explained we hadn't anticipated the problems it would cause and we hadn't worked out the methodology on it. Julie Byrnes said most of the people who were confused were the ones who worked all summer. We did this to help the people who aren't here in the summer.
Stephen said we would like to send a letter telling them that either permit is good this summer. Most members felt this would help. Stephen asked if they would propose that we then begin next year, and we tell them in this letter that next year the permits will expire in May, so we are doing reserved lot permits from May to May. It was stated that some people will expect to get a refund, and complain when they don't. Stephen asked if we were prepared to live with that, and say they're not getting their refund; that this year we allowed them to use their permits earlier. Or we can continue with the August expiration date. They would get their permits in May, but they won't expire until August. Margo asked what the disadvantage was with having it overlap. Stephen stated having two permits was a problem.
Jerry Spadafore said the fact remains you pay $75.00 once a year and you get year-round parking. He wasn't concerned about the money, because we weren't charging more than $75.00 per year, no matter what the expiration dates are. Linda stated that would be good verbage for the letter. Phyllis said she had some people who were concerned about it, and she was surprised. She didn't see what difference it made, because you still only pay $75.00 for one year. All members stated you should keep the letter simple.
Stephen stated we would like to have them expire in May, so it would cut down on the confusion factor. Jerry stated we should give that some thought. If you pay $75.00 it represents a full year of parking. So if you started in May and ended in May it's still a full year. Phyllis said if we make effective next spring, the people who paid $75.00 this fall, are going to swear they were shorted three months, and they're going to want some money back.
David Goddard wanted to know if this change was made to make it easier for the Parking Office. Stephen clarified the only reason it was done was to accommodate faculty. The permits would run June 1 to May 31. It's only a time frame change.
Linda explained the other question we had on this is in the fall, the policy has been that we allow students to purchase reserved lot permits. But since the faculty/staff now have this much of a jump, can we sell to students beginning in August. Jerry quoted the Regulations as saying "Only faculty staff members may purchase reserved lot permits." However, some lots do not sell out so it would be advantageous to sell the left over spaces to students. Most members agreed that selling them to students was a good idea. Phyllis stated you couldn't sell them too soon in August because of new faculty/staff members coming in, etc. Shane suggested sending new faculty/staff members a letter advising them to purchase their permits as soon as possible. Shane stated he could already hear students complaining that before they only had to wait a few weeks, now they'll be waiting months before reserve lot permits are available to them. All members agreed to change the expiration date to run June1 to May 31. General lot permits would go on sale in May also.
Shane made the motion to start selling reserve lot permits to students during fee payment, where spaces are available. Phyllis Bailey seconded the motion. Motion was carried.
V. Reserve Parking Spaces in Y Lot
Stephen stated the issue there is that the Institute has a parking garage which has 11 spaces. The inquiry being made is will we make that a reserve lot. Stephen's recommendation is that yes we make that a reserve lot. It's a special covered parking area, you have to drive into it and back out. If we make it a general lot, there's going to be a safety problem. The faculty will probably get there first anyway. Shane wanted to know if that would include the parking garage and the small lot adjacent. Stephen said no, it would not be the small lot, just the parking garage. The Institute maintains the small lot at this time, but when the changes are made, the small lot will become ours, and it will remain general. Stephen said we are in the process of lowering that lot this summer, so it's not as steep an incline, and bring it down so it's a more level lot. But he felt the parking garage should be a reserve lot. We would charge the $75.00 rate for the reserve spaces.
Shane made the motion to make the parking garage at the LDS Institute a reserve lot. Motion was seconded. There was no further discussion. Motion was carried.
VI. Post Office Parking
Julie Byrnes said she had a faculty member approach her about the possibility of putting in 12 meters in those designated areas. David Goddard said they had received some history on the Post Office parking. All the 12 minute meters that were put in place along/in front of the hypostyle,and museum building were originally designed to double as Post Office parking, and the Post Office parking spaces were to be pulled out, and opened up to regular parking spots, which was the original intent. Would changing those spots to 12 minute meters really solve the problem? There's 6 12 minute meters and two Post Office spaces.
Stephen explained that there used to be 4 15 minute Postal Parking spaces. The 2 they have now, and 2 over on the first lane. Those were the 2 we agreed to take out, which we did; and leave the other 2 that are still there. So we have a total of 8. Phyllis asked if the meters by the museum were marked for Post Office. They are not. Jerry said he thought the problem was the allocation of spaces for Post Office parking, but rather the abuse. He's gone in there, and there are two cars parked in those spaces, and no one in the Post Office except him. These spaces are also very hard for the officers and ticket writers to patrol. They would have to stand there and watch where people were going, and how long the were gone. Stephen explained that the ticket writers normally go by and write the license plate number down, patrol the lot, then go back and check the cars in those spaces. Phyllis suggested maybe we should mark the 12 minute meters for Post Office only. Harriett thought maybe the 12 minute meters were not very close to the Post Office and most people would probably use them for Financial Aid, etc. It was suggested the Post Office could solve this by having a drive-thru. Some members laughed at this, but all agreed that maybe it wasn't such a bad idea. Shane asked how hard it would be to put in a drive-thru there. Jerry thought maybe we should ask the Post Office if this was an option they might consider.
Stephen stated the original intention for the 12 minute meters was not just for the Post Office. Shane stated they were also convenient for the Registrar's Office. Putting meters in the 2 Post Office spaces probably would not help. Manpower shortage is also a problem. It would not be worth the cost to put in more meters.
Jerry stated he really liked the idea of having a drive-thru at the Post Office, and asked Steve who could bring this up with them. Steve said he could take to them, and would be glad to. This concluded discussion of the agenda items.
Stephen had two more items he wanted to discuss with the Board. One of them was brought up at the Safety Meeting, regarding the exits and entrances at X South Lot. Shane made the motion at the Safety Meeting concerning the problem of cars parked right at the exits and entrances in this lot. It makes it hard to see if anyone is coming. There are no yellow curbs.
Shane stated the suggestion from the Safety Committee was to yellow curb it, but it's taking away parking spaces, and that is why it was referred to the Parking Advisory Board. There are approximately 350 spaces in that lot. All members agreed that not having these areas yellow curbed was a safety problem, and it would only take one student getting critically injured to be enough that we should yellow curb the exits and entrances to X South Lot (also damage to vehicles).
Harriett Miller made a motion to yellow curb the exits and entrances in X South Lot. Shane seconded the motion. Motion carried.
Stephen had a couple of other issues. The parking regulations allow us to write moving violations on campus in relationship to established Idaho Code. That means if someone doesn't use their turn signal or fails to stop at a stop sign, even though they do those things on private property, which are not in violation of Idaho Code, because the Parking Board has adopted those moving violations, we can go ahead and apply them to student, staff and faculty. Recently, we had an incident where a young student was driving in W Lot, he was coming down from Bartz Way, and he did not have his lights on in the parking lot. This was at 2:00 o'clock in the morning. When our officer turned his overhead lights on to ask him to stop so he could find out what was going on, he ignored the officer, and drove off campus. It was rather suspicious. So we contacted the Pocatello Police. We could not follow them off campus, so we shut our lights off, when he got to the street. But we followed him because they asked us to, and he took a surreptitious route through campus and ended up on Pocatello Creek Road, where the City Police finally made contact with him, and stopped him.
Jerry wanted to know if that was the typical policy, to detain someone, then refer him to the City Police to give a citation? Stephen stated we do not have the authority to initiate our lights or make stops off campus, or on city streets. We can on campus, and we can issue citations on campus. So what the officer did when he stopped them, the police officer said, "Well hey, these are just a bunch of rent-a-cops, I've got no obligation to stop these people, so I just went about my business." As we look at the Idaho Code, the Idaho Code says it's illegal for you not to have your lights on at certain times, on roadways; not parking lots. Stephen said we would like the Board to consider that we say, we should require people to have their lights on in our parking lots. All members agreed we should require headlights on in parking lots. He did go on the roadway, and was given a citation for this. But the problem is what if they don't go on the roadway, and they're just flipping around in the parking lot.
The other issue was, he chose not to stop for us. Now the Idaho Code says you have to stop for a police officer, so we can't apply the Idaho Code in this situation, because we are not considered police officers. What Stephen would like the Board to consider that when we turn our overhead lights on on campus to pull someone over, and they refuse to do that, then we take the appropriate action. It may be that we just follow him someplace and do a registration check, but then we come back and write him a citation for failure to stop.
Harriett Miller was concerned with having our officers put in a dangerous situation. Stephen agreed with her 100%, and we train them how to make traffic stops, we give them bulletproof vests, pepper spray. He would prefer they were armed police officers, but we don't have that choice. They don't like us doing that, but we also have an obligation to protect the campus, we should be able to make traffic stops and issue tickets. What Stephen wanted to suggest is that we don't change what we normally do right now, but we just codify some of the areas that aren't covered, and that is they have to stop when we initiate the lights. If they don't, they get a ticket. If you don't have your lights on in our parking lot after dark, they're gonna write you a ticket for that. All the others are covered by Idaho Code, so we don't have a problem. Phyllis said in a lot of big cities, on private lots, the security forces are allowed to issue tickets, and refer them to the city or county.
Shane wanted it clarified that if Idaho Code doesn't require them to stop for anybody but a police officer, how we can. Stephen explained because we have the right to regulate or promote rules and regulations that apply on private property to the people that we deal with. Stephen said Idaho State Univ. was open to the public, but it was for a specific purpose, so you can regulate what actions and activities occur on this property. Shane asked that by doing this we are also within Code. Stephen said yes. Shane wanted to know what the procedure was for somebody who doesn't stop for a city police officer, and would that same penalty be imposed. Stephen said it would be a misdemeanor violation, but our code or parking regulations state that we charge $25.00 for moving violations. It was futher explained that if it was on private property, we would issue the ticket, we would handle, we would refer them to the Dean of Students, or whatever. If they ignore our officers, we then refer them to the city police. Harriett asked if they could appeal tickets like that, Stephen said yes, they go through the same process.
Shane asked if we were looking for two separate motions. Stephen said just one that would allow, or to include in the parking regulations, as a moving violation, failure to have your lights on in our parking lots, as specified in the Idaho Code, when people have to have their lights on on the city streets; and to make it a violation of parking regulations, and a moving violation for a person for failure to stop or failure to yield to a Public Safety vehicle. Those are two separate issues. With the emergency vehicle, we can apply that to the Idaho Code, as it states you have to yield to an emergency vehicle, and we are classified as emergency vehicles.
David made the motion that use of headlights include parking lots as well as streets. Motion was seconded. Motion was carried.
David made the motion the motor vehicles on university property must yield to Public Safety vehicles in an emergency. Motioned was seconded by Harriett Miller. Motion carried.
Julie Byrnes said that Graduation and parking for graduation had been handled very well this year. She got in and out quickly. Shane noted there were fewer graduates this year. They all felt Public Safety had done a good job.
Harriett Miller had two little things she wanted to go over in changes to the regulations. Harriett wanted to know if the requirement for disabled permit holders to have a state permit had been implemented yet. Linda stated it had been implemented and would be in the regulations as soon as we had the wording set.
Harriett's other issue was if all the fees and fines were up-to-date. Linda Tobias stated they were.
David and Shane wanted to get a copy of the parking regulations. It was stated they were on the internet.
Meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m.