Feedback from Amy’s Parking Memo collected by APC
This feedback was submitted to Amy Parsons and the Center for Public Deliberation (CPD). The CPD noted that 38 people preferred the status quo/hunting license parking model, and 39 preferred the tiered model. This calculation differed slightly to what I’ve listed below.
Tiered System – 41 responses in support
• While I was resistant to the Tiered Parking Plan, as it undoubtedly favors those that can pay more, and will create some issues with learning the new system, I can see the value in it. People can put a priority on parking and what they are willing to pay, and it avoids the massive chaos of looking for the “next closest lot.” I think the plan would be better sold if a proposed model was prepared. If employees could see what how lots might be designated in advance that might help.
• I will continue to buy a permit regardless of which system we go with. My preference is to go with the tiered system because I would like a choice in how much of my money I spend on a parking permit. If we go to the tiered system I will happily buy a permit in the “C” tier, keep more of my money in my pocket and ride the bus to my office. If someone wants to think of me as lower class person because of it the I could care less what they think.
• In the open forum time for state class. and admin pro, President Frank said that one of his concerns was indeed affordable parking and he stated that he would not accept a plan that did not take into account some of our lowest paid employees. I am guessing $550 is just not affordable for many people working and going to school on campus. I think that is why the hunting model proposal will be out- I don’t think it is fair and I don’t think Dr. Frank would approve it based on his conversation (if he does have any say in the end…). The notion that a tiered system may connote a “potential perception of a class system” is odd. There are definite income differences at CSU. A choice of what you want (or are able) to spend money on should be parking and that means some options of what your budget can handle from $276 to $564. I also don’t know why “flexibility via daily permits, monthly, meter parking” is not also a part of the tiered system- it certainly can be (right now it is listed under pros for the hunting model).
And people have more choice to weigh their options, like if it worth it to them to spend more on a permit if it means getting closer to the building, less walking time, less time getting to work on time, or if is possible to adjust one’s schedule to park farther away and pay less money. In essence, people will get more choice to decide what can work for them in terms of what they value most time/$/flexibility/locations, etc.
• I am concerned that the stated focus is on choosing between two fixed models rather than how to adjust one model or the other to sufficiently address the significant concerns. Personally, I think the tiered model should be given a chance, but not without adjustment to facilitate necessary movement during the day (for a medical appointment for example) and especially not without adjustment to allow Adult Fitness patrons from off-campus sufficient access to Field
House parking (such as a 2 hour limit within the Field House lot and continued special access for
Adult Fitness patrons without an A-North permit). Also, the new model needs more flexibility for parking after 5 PM rather than 10 PM. I predict the tiered model will be approved. Then, when everyone with an A-North permit, including students, can park in the current A and Z zones in vicinity of Laurel Hall, I predict difficulty finding a convenient spot if arriving after 8 AM plus being forced to park at significant distance from Laurel Hall (probably off-campus east of here or in a B lot) when one must drive somewhere during the day and cannot find an A-North spot upon return. I fear the whole A-North area will become like currently trying to find a

parking spot on Howes or Meldrum or nearby cross streets between 7:30 AM and 5
PM. Similarly, the Field House lot will be filled with all day A-North parking, leaving no space for
Adult Fitness and other short term Field House patrons; plus this lot currently allows listed Adult
Fitness patrons without permits (retirees, etc.) who would have to find parking off-campus to use the Field House during the week. Adult Fitness patrons with A-South permits could not use
Field House lot during the week either.
• I like the sound of the tiered system. It seems like it will have better outcomes than the existing
“hunting license” system. I can imagine that there is some resistance to implementing a new parking system on campus, but as it sounds like the parking situation is changing, I can’t imagine that the existing system will be a good fit for the new reality. It seemed like the tiered system better reflected the emerging parking situation on campus.
• I favor the tiered plan. I also favor additional improvements for bicycle commuters – specifically more bike parking – and perhaps even indoor/protected parking. I am very happy with the incentives to use alternative transportation – specifically the subsidized bus fares!
• (prefer) Tiered System
• Of the two undesirable models presented here, the tiered approach is the only model of the two that someone in my position could even hope to afford (the 3rd cheapest level). However, I believe we will see an overabundance of purchases of that lower level, thus greatly increasing the competition for the “Cheap seats” while looking for parking in those lots. If CSU wants to earn money with parking, they should increase the supply and cheapen the rates – more people spending less earns more money than a few full professors and administrative leaders paying
$500.
• I prefer the tiered parking payment proposal.
• My preference for parking would be the tiered system. I feel this would allow everyone to pay for what section they want. On this note, the one thing that was not addressed in Amy’s letter was free parking for retired individuals. We have numerous individuals in our unit who have retired but are still working here. I know they have served the University for many years, but they are still earning a paycheck and I feel they should have to contribute to the large debt load for parking.
• A tiered system seems most reasonable: I don’t mind walking a bit to pay less to park and not have to drive around small lots hunting for a space.
• If these are the two options, I would choose the tiered system.
• I would go with the Tiered system model. While I don’t like how staff with lower incomes may be disadvantaged, the hunting license may be unaffordable to some people altogether. And I do appreciate that there will be fewer people vying for the same spots with the tiered system.
• Between the two options listed, I would still prefer the existing system – we need to keep incentives to use alternative transportation. I don’t understand how the 3-tiered system can generate enough income since the highest priced pass is only $14 more than the standard price in the hunting license model. I would think it would have to be significantly more to balance the lower rates?
• I’m honestly really struggling with this “choice” we are being given. I don’t see either as feasible in my budget with two kids in car seats going to two different locations for drop-off and pick-up every day. I live in Bellvue so there is no bus system. Even if there were, how could I drop kids off at two locations by bus and arrive to work at a reasonable hour? I feel like I am being asked to choose between keeping my job and keeping my home in Bellvue – which is where I can afford to live. I was also pretty offended by the wording in the memo. It seems biased towards

the tiered system when using words like “hunting license” parking for the alternative and
“potential perception of class system” for the tiered system. Yes, that is right, faculty and highup administrators (who make far more than I do) will be parking on the inside while I am unable to afford it. Thanks CSU. Thanks for making this a better place for working moms to work
(not)!!!! Both options sound awful. If I am forced to choose I begrudgingly choose the tired system because of the proposed price of the “Hunting License” model. I’ll be parking out in the sticks because that is all I can afford.
• I like the tiered option for parking. It's nice to have a place for the car when needed, but I'd prefer to keep the costs down since I don't use public transit all the time. And I like walking. For this option, I wonder less about a class-system perception as much as the difficulty it might cause for those who struggle with income, but who need close-in parking for ailments or limitations that may not necessarily merit a handicap spot
• Parking - Prefer tiered system model
• Tiered Parking (preferred)
• I prefer the tiered approach for parking.
• I would suggest that the tiered parking is the better option.
• I like the idea of having parking costs based on the salary and also different costs based on where the parking is located. Parking costs of $550 per year is going to be unaffordable for most of the employees. I would also like to be able to buy a set of parking permits for when the weather is not conducive to other means of transport.
• My feedback on the parking issue: I prefer the three-tiered option.
• About parking - I feel that the current parking fees are too high, I have dropped my permit several years ago because I cannot afford one. And I am NOT poor! But seriously, who can afford parking with an employer who pays low wages and gives one raise every 10 years? So my answer: all options mentioned are unacceptable, too expensive. It does not matter what our peers charge. Our peers pay better. I would vote that $200 a year is the limit for a permit. Tiered system? Yes! I have worked for Purdue University where we had a tiered system depending on distance and it worked very well. I think it is worth trying. Solution at CSU? Park 1-2 miles away and walk the rest. It is good for you. And yes, it can be a pain when you have to carry a bunch of stuff to work. However, this is not a good solution. Some of my female colleagues who work 2nd shift don't want to do this because they are uncomfortable. And public transportation does not run long enough to accommodate them.
• I read over the memo for the parking permit options and I like the tiered option. I wonder if there could be some sort of reward for using alternative transportation (bike, bus, etc.) during the year while you have a permit. Right now it seems like the options are to use alternative transportation all year (even in bad weather) or buy a parking permit and park on campus. The benefit to using alternative transportation is that you don't have to pay for a parking permit.
• I feel like there’s something missing in the parking options outlined. There’s no acknowledgement of employees that must have their car on campus (and preferably conveniently near their office) due to the nature of their work. Those of us in fundraising (and
I’m sure other fields) travel often off campus to meet with donors and alumni. It’s not conducive to an efficient work environment to have to walk back and forth across campus to a parking structure multiple times a day. I wish there was a better solution to this issue. However,

with that being said, I do think that a tiered system for lower income employees is good. Deciding on the tiers will be difficult.
• I like the new tiered option, especially if one is able to "park down" if no parking is available in the preferred area.
• I also prefer the tiered parking system for flexibility and to have choices available to better fit budgets/needs/preferences.
• I’ve been on the CSU campus as both a student and staff member since 1999 and I would prefer the “Tiered System”. Although more work and potentially more confusing, I think the positives highly outweigh the negatives. If there is a reduction of waste and less searching for a spot, that would be a wonderful benefit for everyone. I think this is one of the main parking frustrations currently and has been for me for well over 15 years now. Change is inevitable on campus a whole regardless. Seems we have not stopped adding new buildings for more than a decade now and just as campus has changed, I think employees will adapt quickly to parking changes as well. I also assume Parking Services will do a good job of providing signage and maps to designate the new areas making it easier. Also, I personally need to leave my building and move to another quickly. This is a challenge currently and if this was alleviated even a little, it would certainly save me and I am sure many others who do the same a ton of frustration.
• The Hunting License model sounds like a free for all, so I am going to vote for the Tiered System model .
• I vote for the Tiered System Model.
• I like the Tiered System Model. If I’m going to pay over $500/yr to park, I’d prefer to be in the top class. Only real concern is how the permits will be limited causing a wait list.
• I have been reading the comments with interest. I agree that the tiered system is the most fair.
Since this will apply to all students and staff, does this mean that the residential student permits will go away? Or will residential student permits be included in the tiered system? I am not sure whether anyone has surveyed residential students about the use of on campus parking. I assume that most park on campus, but use bikes, and public transportation to get around during the week. Has there been any discussion about creating long term parking lots for the student residential population? I am thinking something similar to long term parking lots out at DIA.
Ideally those lots would need to be off campus, they would need to have security, and public transportation to get from the long term lots to the campus. Perhaps the area around Hughes stadium could be used for this? That would free up the parking lots around the residences for short term/ commuter use. I see for both models assume moving to year round permits.
Currently I purchase an annual parking permit. But as prices rise, and parking becomes more difficult, I will most probably use the Max/ other options to get to work. Hopefully the Max/ public transport options will continue to be free for CSU staff and students. I can see that on occasion I may want to park on campus. (For medical appointments, or meetings off campus etc.) I would like to have the option to purchase some kind of short term option – perhaps a punch card system, or daily permit? I noted at the Harmony Max station that there are parking lots for car pool vehicles. Will CSU do something similar to encourage staff to car pool? Perhaps car pool lots can get some preferential rates/ locations?
• I think the tiered system is the most fair—if you want to park close to your building you pay more. It also helps to address the lack of student parking on the north side of campus by allowing students to park in areas that have typically been reserved for staff. I think the hunting system we currently have is only going to get more frustrating if we keep it.
• Speaking as an AP employee and not Director of Facilities, I support the Tiered System Model over the Hunting License Model. My strongest reason is that the Tiered Model provides choices

and options for employees and students to find a balance between permit fees and proximity parking. I understand the need to increase parking permit fees to keep pace with the changes within CSU. Based on these increases, it seems to me that having a lower price permit option is important and valuable to the campus community. It provides a choice. There are many items and services that we purchase that have a different price points for different values; this seems to line up with that concept. I also like the concept of a "punch card" or something similar for those who only need to park on campus intermittently.
• I prefer the tiered system model. I really don’t want to pay $500 for parking. Buying a cheaper and further away parking spot will be so much better for me for several reasons: • I will have to walk to my building on days that I drive, I view this as a health benefit (I don’t mind darkness and/or snow)
• I arrive at work after 8am so I would be hunting and frustrated under the hunter license scenario
• I like to bike to work at least two days per week (I cannot do five days in a row, I am not fit enough, I live 9 miles away, and I have to grocery shop on the way home some days), I want the cheaper parking because I won’t use a parking spot every day
• I don’t think the tiered system will result in perception of a “class” system, we all have reasons for what we do
• Spending $500+ on a parking pass is not in my budget and I will try and park in the neighborhoods before I pay that much to park on campus.
• No comment but vote submitted for tiered plan
• Members of my team have to come and go quite a bit from our building to employer sites and meetings. Each time we leave, we lose our parking spots and have to park farther and farther away when we return. This creates hazards for the women, particularly in the dark winter months and a big risk for injury on snowy sidewalks off campus. We are also usually carrying a lot of materials to the employers and it is harder to walk farther with an armful of boxes or bags. I think the tiered model would be useful as we could potentially pay more to park closer in our particular situation, at least for the heavy travelers. I’m wondering if there is a way for me to help my staff pay for the higher rates since their jobs require a lot of movement. I’d also like to mention that we have a very difficult problem with employer parking when they come to campus. We were hoping to get a few shared spots designated as employer parking somewhere between the new engineering building and our building so that we can save our employers the nightmare of parking. A good example today was Hach Company who came and had to park illegally in Q parking. Even with that, they were 15 minutes late
Status Quo/Hunting License - 37 responses in support
• I support the current parking permit system with serious consideration of sharing these costs with those who will benefit the most (ex: Medical Center).
• I don’t have a parking pass but am comforted by the fact that if we stay with the current system, we can always change to a tiered system later. Therefore, I would support staying with the current system of parking.
• For the two options mentioned, I would vote for the “hunting license” model. I don’t buy a parking pass but my partner does, and I wouldn’t want her to have to decide between convenience and cost.

• I would be in favor of the “Hunting License” model. Until public transportation in Fort Collins improves, I do not think that there are good enough options to pursue the Tiered System Model.
• I support the current model, not because it’s the better of the two but because I don’t think the tiered parking plan has holistically reviewed the impact on employees. I would like to see more consideration being made to moving student parking on the perimeter and maintaining staff/faculty parking in the core of campus.
• With regards to parking: I would favor the single price option. My concern with the tiered option is that most employees don’t have a choice regarding which building they work in. So if you happen to work in building next to a high price lot, you are getting penalized for something you have no control over – either by having to pay a higher price for a permit or having to park farther away.
• Of the two parking plans I guess I would support Hunting License model more so that than the
Tiered System. Perhaps if you took away the ability to park down I would lean more toward the tiered system as it presents some more affordable options. Like was mentioned in the provided summary the tiered system appears to be a class system. Those who can afford to pay the most have the greatest chance of finding an on campus space someplace. Those who’s budgets are tighter have fewer choices. I wonder how the total dollars raised by the two options compare.
With the most expensive option in the tiered option and the mid and low level options being substantially less I wonder how much less money would be collected under that option. That makes me wonder if the amount proposed under the hunting license plan is higher than it needs to be.
• Please realize that the cost of parking at CSU cannot be evaluated against peer institutions because land values are not the same. Now, if you or Parking Services want to use that information as valid background information, please address how land values are similar or different. As for as parking, I like that we are all equal and think that is the way it should stay.
• I would prefer the "Hunting License" model, but would additionally ask that they consider some sort of "partial" permit option. For example: I would like to take alternative transportation when
I can, but there are times when I simply must take my car, and I can't predict when or how often that might be. Buying daily permits from Parking Services in sufficient quantities to do this is not cost effective, or convenient. So, if an annual permit is going to cost $550, why not also offer a
"half-permit" for $275, allowing me to park in 'A' lots at any time during the year, but only up to half the number of working days? (which would be what, 125 days?) If I use up all my days before the year is up, or I don't use them all, that's my problem, but such an option would give me a much greater incentive to only use a parking space half the time. If I have to buy a full annual pass because I don't want to spend $1,000 on daily passes, then I have no incentive to take alternative transportation at all. How they would track how many days you use, I'm not sure. If they already scan everyone's license plate every day, that's taken care of, but otherwise, um, a punch card?
• I don’t think either option is the answer to the problem. Some questions not answered for the tiered plan is if I purchase the most expensive plan and can’t find parking, where do I park? Or is it something that I could park in my tier or lower tiers? If I had to pick a model I would stay with the hunting license model.
• I work off-campus, and don't come on campus enough to make a parking pass worthwhile. But since you asked, I think the Hunting Liscence option is more fair.

• For Parking I'm in favor of first option one price $550 for all parking spaces. But with option to pay monthly for those that want to. The monthly cost should not cost more, so monthly cost should be $46/mo straight up cost based on the $550 yearly pass. Daily parking permits at $8.
The tiered pricing, I feel, will not work as the medium and cheap parking will sell out and people will still have issues of not finding parking spaces. And those who can afford the high priced parking will not have any issues finding parking. Not a fair plan for everyone as it benefits only those who make high salary at CSU and can afford the premium price.
Of course I would rather have a truly fair parking fee structure based on person's annual salary. So those making over $100K pay the highest price for parking, and then tier the pricing model down based on persons income. So those who make the least pay the least for parking but still have same access as everyone else.
• I prefer the Hunting License Model - it is working now. . . .don't like the tiered.
• I prefer things to stay as they are even if more costly.
• I’ll just say that I support the “Hunting Model” of parking. One price for all, and one set of parking spaces for all.
• The tiered system won’t work unless they manage the # of spaces to the # of A,B, or C level parking. If they do this, then this model can work, but I see lots of issues even so.
• I’m not a fan of either option… but if I had to choose it would be option 2. This option at least gives people the option of paying for what they are ok with.
• I would prefer the Hunting model with the same fee for everyone. I see advantages of the tiered program, but I believe the tiered program would defeat the purpose of the benefit of bussing in from other locations. Having a set fee keeps it the same and makes it less confusing and encourages the use of alternative transportation systems.
• Lastly, with respect to the “Tiered” vs “Hunting License” models… I think the complexities of the
“Tiered” approach, coupled with the problems introduce with returning to campus after midday travel, make this option unattractive. I also believe that the listed “con” of “potential perception of class system” isn’t just a potential – it’s an almost absolute. I noted after attending Tony Frank’s last open forum for staff that a significant portion of his time was occupied by lower-income employees discussing their concerns over parking. This tiering will almost certainly feed into this perception and create conflict going forward.
• Most interested in the ‘hunting license’ permit model due mainly to my job requirements. I’m the lab coordinator for the Biology department. My schedule changes daily. Some days I leave at four p.m., sometimes eight p.m. I often have to leave during the day to drive to get supplies and return.
• I don’t like the new parking plan because it means enforcement of parking permits even when there is not a huge demand for parking, like in the evenings. I vote for the old one or a third option that somehow melds the two.
• My personal preference would be that we go with the “Hunting Model” that Amy details in her email (basically what we have now). o
1. I work for the central campus IT group. I have 2 offices, 1 on the far south side of campus and one on the far north side of campus. I service a few other buildings around campus and university buildings away from the main campus. I’m also one of a handful of people that are “on call” and have 24/7 access to the main campus datacenter. I often have to move from building to building throughout the day and often have to move equipment (not necessarily large volumes of equipment, but enough that carrying

it or taking the bus isn’t going to be an option). The department does have a number of vehicles that we can use for work purposes but they are all located on the far north edge of campus, and are often in use as many in the department support areas all over campus. Currently I use my personal vehicle most of the time, because where I am moving the equipment to is where I quite possibly will be working for the rest of the day or next few days, and tying up a vehicle, or having to go play fetch and return (then go back to where I delivered the equipment) with departmental vehicles is quite time consuming. Having the tiered system would drastically reduce the mobility and increase delays for a lot of the behind the scenes IT service workers that are responsible for far more than their respective zones (A-North, A-Sourth, B, C) around Campus in the
Tiered Model. o
2. I’m a 24/7 “on call” employee, I feel that having the tiered system is somewhat unfair to this group of employees. Part of being an on call (especially for core campus services that affect everyone) is being able to respond to emergencies in a rapid manner. I feel that the “C" and quite possibly “B” parking options (due to their distance from many locations) would effectively force us to have to buy the A pass (which seems like a tax on this class of employee, because I don’t have the option for a cheaper pass based on what my job entails). This would (in some cases) dramatically increase response times in emergencies, which could mean the difference between a small outage for campus and a really large (possibly having to buy new (possibly expensive) hardware) type of outage for campus. I would also add that most of us work a substantial number of hours per week (very far above the standard 40 hours per week, and no we don’t get overtime), we have to be available literally at all hours of the day. Things happen and action is required in some form or another more often than the average person knows (but because the work is never seen by most people, they often forget that we exist, I don’t think we are considered service employees but we are actually very critical to campus infrastructure functioning). o
3. I don’t think that students and faculty/staff should have to compete for parking. I don’t think it is right to assume that the two respective groups have the same daily requirements for parking and transit and it seems that would put a new undue burden on staff/faculty schedules as the dynamics and timing of getting to/from campus or getting around campus would be substantially disrupted. Also during emergencies, the extended hour row A parking has been instrumental in helping keep good response times to a number of locations around campus during after hours when students are free to park almost wherever, under the tiered scheme, these spots would not exist. o
4. I feel that the Tiered System would effectively create a class system on campus. As rates go up, students with more access to capital as well as more highly paid employees will have more access to prime parking as they can easily afford the high price, leaving everyone else with the “average (B pass)” or “poor (C pass)” parking spaces (based on affordability). Now this in itself isn’t a bad thing except for the fact that Colorado State
University is a State Funded Equal Opportunity Institution, and this to me sounds a lot like Non-Equal Opportunity Parking (we currently have equal opportunity parking). o
If “Hunting Model” is not selected, it seems to me that there should almost be a “service” class of employee permit holders that can park most areas on campus (there aren’t necessarily a huge number of us), but even if there was a “service” class of employee we’d still have to compete heavily with students for parking, which once again is going to affect service.

o
I can’t stress enough how important parking and access to buildings all over campus and off campus is for a lot of the Central IT staff because we in some form or another support every department, building, and person on campus, and due to how “thinned” our ranks have become due to budgetary constraints we are doing more with less
(people). If now everything takes longer to get done (especially in emergencies) due to newly transit imposed restrictions, it is definitly going to negatively affect infrastructure and services and response times to emergencies across campus in many different ways.
• Hunting License is my choice
• Although I am voting for the hunting license model, I would like more information about how the prices would increase each year for each of the models. As a single parent, the increase in the parking prices is significant to me. Additionally, as a single parent, it is imperative that I have my car close to the workplace in case I need to leave upon short notice to get my son for any reason. This means that I am basically on call at all times. This also makes biking to work much more difficult for me, as I have to take my child to and from daycare each day. And anyone out there with young children should be well aware of the obstacles that can be thrown at you when trying to get out the door in the morning. There are many times when my child can put me behind on time in the morning. If I would have to park at a location away from my building and then wait for a ride to actually get to work, I would most definitely be late to work most days. I also have to take into account the additional time it would take me in the evenings to get to my car before going to pick up my son. I work late most nights and leave work just in time to be able to pick my son up from daycare before it closes. So although paying for a lower tiered parking permit is what is in my budget, it's not even an option for me with my circumstances.
Additionally, I work in the Howes Street Business Center which is a little further off campus, requiring that I drive to some meetings that I have that are a good distance from my building.
With the busy demands of my job, time is very important to me and at times taking 20 minutes each way to walk to and from a meeting is not a good use of mine nor the University's time. I also take advantage of the noon hour fitness program and go to Moby during my lunch hour 3 times a week. If my vehicle was not available to me and I had to walk, I would be very overextended on the hour that I have for lunch which would make it impossible for me to continue with this program that I enjoy so much. For this, I would take advantage of the Around the Horn transportation, but unfortunately our building is not a stop on their route. With the cashier's office being relocated to our building, it was requested that Howes Street be made a stop, however that request was denied. Why is it that our lot is being considered in the highest tier, but we are not provided the luxury of the alternative transportation without having to walk several blocks to get to it? If my parking permit is helping to fund this, I feel it should be made more convenient. I would also like to express the concern that I have with the tiered model, as this would allow students and employees to park in the same lots. How would we monitor students that may live on or near campus, and leave their cars parked for days at a time? Could this mean that when I arrive to work in the morning that many of the spaces are already filled by students living in the area?
I just don't feel that parking at my own workplace should be considered to be a luxury, or something that I have to spend such a large chunk of my budget to buy.
• My counterparts and I in Employment visit campus customers constantly. We can each have
3,5, or more appointments across campus in a day, including VTH, foothills, and main campus. I’ll admit that A lots make a huge difference for us doing business on campus. There are typically A lots in proximity to business offices, which makes it possible for us to get from appointment to appointment. If our lot or other A lots across campus were open to students,

I’m afraid that would make doing business very difficult! What option is there for this kind of work need? (I’d be open to discussing HR golf carts?? J )
• Do you know if there is a map of what the tiered system would look like, for example, where the higher paid spaces would be, and where the less expensive spaces would be located? I checked
Parking’s website but could not find anything. It would help greatly in providing feedback
My vote would be to stick with the “Hunting License” model. Thanks for asking for our input!
It’s much appreciated!!!
• Please put me down for the Hunting license model. I believe this is a much for equitable system for all and does away with the perception of “classes” . I do find the “Tiered” system flawed and distasteful. Thank you for asking for input. I am wondering, is any more information is available? Specifically, would it be possible to have maps that identify which lots would be available to who in each model, Hunting License vs. Tiered?
If this is all the information we have, my vote is for Hunting License. It levels the playing field and is an equitable solution. It is my opinion the Tiered style is exclusive and excludes those whose paychecks are smaller. You also mentioned the Tiered model is fixed, there is no going back. That seems limiting, whereas the Hunting permit can be amended at a future time.
Thank you for compiling the information. I hope there is still time to get a better picture of what both models look like.
• While I can appreciate the high costs involved with maintaining a parking infrastructure such as ours, we need to realize that the core of campus was designed years ago when there were far less students and employees. I’m of the opinion that the “Hunting License” model is the most logical and affordable option given the challenges. Like you said, we can always change to the tiered system later.
• I concur with Suzanne, and while the Hunting License Model has its downsides, the Tiered
System Model looks more intimidating, and more apt to create a “class system.” While we may not like the increase in parking costs, I have heard from employees, who used to be at other universities, that our costs are below the average. Still, it’s a bitter pill to swallow. What I would like to see is if the technology that PTS uses for the LPR (license plate recognition) can handle a
10-punch or 25-punch type of pass. I did ask about that, and while currently their software cannot do that, they have inquired with their vendor whether it’s something that could be added, as an option, later on. Personally, although it’s obviously more convenient to park on campus, I’d be happy to park off campus and walk to work (or take mass transit), if at least occasionally I could park on campus, just when needed, but without having to purchase daily scratch-offs ahead of time.
• No comment but vote for hunting license model
• I prefer the “Hunting License” Model.
• This is Colorado, I say go with the “hunting license” model!
• I normally get to campus at 6:00 AM so do not have an issue finding parking. That being said there are times I have to use my personnel vehicle to go to meetings with the city, county, or state officials or to go to an outlying campus for an inspection. I prefer the hunting method as we have now. I understand that if I leave campus with my personnel vehicle I know I will not find an open parking spot around the General Services building until around 3:00 in the afternoon when quite a few of the trades personnel from Facilities leave work. If I am lucky I end up parking in the Z lot between Pitkin and Lake Street and walking back to the office, I have parked as far as the UCA building but that has been rare. I don’t see it saving me money with either system as I would pay for the closet tier to the building anyway so as to be able to leave when needed as some inspections and meetings are scheduled at the last minute.

• I would vote for the Hunting License option. I’d rather pay more and have a greater likelihood of finding a space near the building I need to work at or visit. In the tiered model, if the Howes street lot ended up being a cheaper lot, we could potentially have to park on campus, away from our building even if we pay the higher tier, due to the demand for cheap parking. One more comment, I’m not supportive of number 7. So many employees across campus could argue that they have a hard time paying for parking, but have a need to have a car nearby. The employees paying for permits will have to cover the portion of those in this program indirectly.
• I prefer to stay in the current system especially with the cost of moving to the tiered system.
• I am not a fan of the tiered system. Most people will go for the lowest tier and then all of the pressure is on the lowest tier lots. In addition, I have to drive to various places on campus and then I would have to find the few lots that are part of my tier. I prefer the one rate for all lots which allows for more flexibility. It will also force people who can use the public transportation to explore that option rather than avoiding it because they don’t need to consider it because of the convenience that they currently have. I would also like to see permits broken down by semester and summer. If we didn’t have to pay and be penalized for not getting a full year permit, many people on campus would use more alternative transportation during the spring and summer months. Right now, we get penalized if we do not purchase a full year permit, and if I am buying a full year permit, why should I even consider using public transportation? Just my thoughts and opinion! Thanks.
• My vote is for keeping parking as the status quo for three reasons: 1) it better encourages the use of alternative transportation; 2) it feels more employee friendly, as it doesn’t unintentionally create a class system; and 3) it still provides us the flexibility to move toward a tiered plan at some time in the future. I also don’t support the tiered plan, because it will take people longer to get to their buildings, if they need to be bussed in or out, which will cut into people’s personal time. Also, I think that the university should consider putting the up to 10% of funding toward parking that they are allowed to do under the statute, instead of relying on parking permits to pay for parking…and alternative transportation.
Miscellaneous Feedback
• I don’t have a parking permit. Can’t afford it. However, I’ve heard they are thinking of 24/7 enforcement of all lots and I think that is a very unsafe proposal for females needing to work and/or study on campus late at night. Not to mention greedy and silly as most lots are practically empty past 7:00 pm.
• If CSU really wants to encourage alternative transportation, why do we have to pay $15 bike registration? As an almost daily bike commuter, I find it ridiculous, especially considering I ride a couple different bikes based on road conditions and am expected to register each one individually. I’ve heard their reasons – they say it helps them recover stolen bikes – and, as someone who has had a locked bike stolen from campus in midday from Rockwell and never had it recovered, I find it weak and somewhat insulting; campus police very, very rarely recover bikes. Bike owners can register their bikes for free with plenty of systems that will keep the serial numbers in a database.
• A friend who works at University of Georgia told me about a really cool option they have through their parking services: they can buy an annual pass good for 30 days of parking for anytime during that year. I ride a bike most of the time and usually ride the bus when it’s icy, but I sometimes need a vehicle on campus to visit employers, go to off-site meetings, etc. Paying $8 per day to park feels outrageous, but I wouldn’t hesitate to pay $75ish per year

for a 30-day pass. I know we can buy a monthly pass here, but I only need to drive to campus intermittently throughout the academic year.
• 1. Regarding the $20M cost of the South College Avenue Parking garage. I feel that the new
Medical Center will benefit the most from this garage. CSU should only contribute the percent that it occupies in the building which is considerably less than the other tenants. The 155 parking spaces on site are not enough to accommodate a considerable staff and all clients, so they will use the parking garage. Just the fact that the lot at south College and Lake is rarely full shows that a garage will be for the benefit of the Medical Center. I do not think that we should pay the full amount for this garage. Without bearing the entire $20M, our fees would be considerably less. 2. I take exception to no mention of the “Con” affecting older employees with the tiered system. Not everyone is disabled enough for handicapped parking yet getting around is difficult on many days. Parking out and taking the bus requires quite a bit of walking for me and quite frankly I don’t think I will be able to. Of course safety is an issue but this was brought up. Have you ever used Safe Walk? I have and they are great folks but timing egress is very difficult. As far as buying the higher priced lots space, in general, older workers have more medical bills, but due to their salary, do not qualify for “employees in need” hence the working poor. I have to drive in from 10 miles North of town. I cannot connect with a share ride due to odd hours and few folks living near me. 3. The buses need to be smaller and have express buses to go far north including 555 S. Howes and south with less stops. I have tried to use Around The
Horn, but it takes too long and I marvel at how empty these huge buses are. I have to walk to get to the busses. I timed walking from the south of campus to the Scott Bldg. and then returning on the bus. I walk slowly and still beat the bus. I realize this whole parking issue is complex but please remember the old and partially disabled.
• I am an admin pro on campus – essentially serving the role of academic support coordinator and instructor simultaneously. Because of the inadequate pay for my non-tenure position, I ALREADY cannot afford a parking permit on campus at current rates. I know that this is a widespread issue for other instructors and/or academic support coordinators on campus. I park in neighborhood spots off campus and hope that I don’t get hassled walking back to my car in the dark.
• I mostly bike to campus and when I drive I park in the metered lots. So I am in favor of any parking plan that keeps the metered lots and keeps them affordable.
• I think a good job of present the pros and cons of both options were given. I’ll comment on a few reasons I still drive to campus. First addressing the use of the max bus system or any other bus options. I don’t use MAX because the closest stop to my home is the on campus one. The next closest with any available parking would require my driving an extra mile both mornings and evenings and having to go through more traffic signals. The closest non max bus stop to my house is a half mile away. I also have a number of evening activities that the extra commute time would not allow me to make. I went one year without a parking pass parking in the neighborhood East of College. When I got a new car I came back to parking on campus again.
This past year I was considering going back to that option but with the new neighborhood permit areas on several sides of campus I was worried if fining a space in the area I used to park in would be even more challenging that it had been in the past.
• $550! WTF? How does this compare to other similarly sized universities? And yes the tiered system doesn’t create a sense of a class system…it IS a class system. Someone who can afford

that absurd price gets a primo spot while those who can’t don’t. That’s the nature of a class system. I can also foresee paying $300 and still end up parking on Remington St. (for free).
• Other Comments: o a. The current system is an either/or system: I either buy a parking permit OR I use alternative transportation. How about a system that encourages or promotes a system where I could park on campus when I need to but encourages me to use alternative options when possible? I am currently using the MAX but am not particularly enjoying adding to my commute time (it used to be 10-15 minutes/day when I parked on campus but is now at least 30-35 minutes when I park at Drake and use the MAX). Also I enjoy biking to work when the weather is nice, but I live 5 miles south of campus and really have no desire to bike in the winter when temperatures are <35 F or when the weather is inclement. A system where I could bike most of the time in the spring/summer & fall but park on campus in winter and park when bad weather would be ideal. Perhaps monthly parking permit at the same cost as an annual pass divided by 12. Perhaps a permit to park so many days a year to encourage primarily using alternatives. o b. $550 to have a hunting permit seems excessive, especially since permits cost a little over $100 about 5 or so years ago. CSU risks losing people who just get fed-up with the parking situation and high expense just to get to work. Perhaps an expensive overly architecturally beautiful parking garage (like the one on Center Ave) is not necessary. o c. Why is a parking garage needed? It cost almost 5x as much as surface parking. The parking along College/Lake is hardly ever even half full now that many people are using the MAX. o d. Too many pay-to-park meter spaces are occupying lots that use to be available for
Z & A lots permit holders. Make these daily people pay-to-park at the parking garage or the least used spaces in exterior lots. Allow permit holders to park in these spaces as well without paying. o e. Have a cheap exterior lot (there used to be one behind the Hilton Hotel) with a convenient shuttle. Many people would mind that walk if they could save quite a bit of money. This is a model the University of New Hampshire implemented when I used to work there. It really encouraged people to park away from the center of campus and use the shuttle. o f. Many times CSU / Government vehicles are occupying many spots in many lots.
Get these vehicles out of these lots and to the CSU compound. o g. Diagonal parking on East Drive instead of parallel? o h. Does anyone really use the Around the Horn service? I see that bus empty most of the time, seems quicker to walk across campus. Perhaps use fancy golf carts to shuttle people across campus and to have a drop-off in front of LSC/Library, parking garage,
MAX stations, Alumni/College/Lake lot. This would likely be quicker, more efficient than big empty buses (quick hop on/off), and cool & fun! o i. Close parking & driving on Oval!
• However, I have a few thoughts that caveat this choice (of the tiered system). o
1. While I understand that parking services needs to generate its own revenue, I do feel that the current situation is due to poor planning by the university in the past.
Asking employees to shoulder the burden of past failures seems to be a bit of a cop out.
I would highly encourage the university to consider making some one time improvements to this poor system out of its own budget before shouldering the costs on us.

o
2. Additionally, I would like to point out that the cost of living in Fort Collins is currently high and only getting steeper. Both my partner and I work on campus and cannot afford to live in the actual city we work in. There is not an option for us to take public transit to work from Wellington. I personally know several other CSU staff members who commute from Wellington (and other surrounding towns) and do so because the housing market in Fort Collins is out of what our salary allows us to afford.
My commute is already almost 30 minutes to work (we do car pool when we are able), asking me to add additional commute because we can’t afford the top tier is not a
“perceived” class system as Amy’s email stated it is actually a class system. o
3. With 3 children in pre-school and grade school. I need quick access to my vehicle in case of emergencies. Knowing that I am already 30 minutes away from my child in an emergency already has me uncomfortable, adding another 15-20 minutes of commute seems like the working/middle class parents are at the losing end of this new system.
• I reviewed the Parking memo from Amy Parsons, and it raised several questions, which preclude me from making a decision on which option is best. o
Where would these different (new) parking zones be? For example, I currently park in a lot off of East Dr., but this is close to the edge of campus. Would this mean I would need the pay for the most expensive pass or the middle one? It would be helpful if we knew what constituted the boundaries for these different parking zones. o
I looked at several other universities across the US that CSU has compared itself to in the past, and I did not see that our rates are 40-50% below most of these universities. In fact, it seemed that it would be difficult to compare, because many of the universities
(e.g., Texas A&M) have complex parking structures in place with multiple options for parking. As an example, Texas A&M currently charges students and faculty $275 per year to park in most lots. However, for garage spaces, numbered spaces, or spaces behind parking guards, the cost goes up significantly. Maybe this is akin to the regionbased zones proposed here, but it seemed to me like there were other options to consider that were not noted in the memo.
• First of all, it is sort of hidden in the footnotes but moving to a year-round permit is disturbing. I would really argue for having no enforcement during spring break, Thanksgiving and Christmas breaks. This really helps my biking attitude during less than ideal weather. I would also like for it to be legal to ride on the plaza during all breaks including summer – just seems like a cheap incentive and it is a time saver and safety improvement.
• On the first item, Sharing feedback regarding parking options: I believe on campus parking should be expensive and difficult to find. (In Japan one must show proof of parking before completing an automobile purchase. Parking is often more costly than the car.) The more expensive and difficult it is to find parking, the better. I have been at CSU since 2007 and have never had nor been able to afford a parking permit. I have spent an estimated $10 on metered parking in this time. This has in no way hampered nor hindered my experience at CSU. The fact that many people do buy parking permits suggest permits are too inexpensive and the cost should be increased by 30-50% per semester. The number of complaints about the lack of parking suggests it may be hard enough to find although I have no experience in this regard, there is plenty of space at the bike racks. In addition to encouraging green methods of transportation, the university should, by way of parking options, discourage driving to campus especially for individual drivers. Car-pooling should be the only way parking is an affordable option - split between 2-6 people, in a similar fashion as students use to afford rent. Providing

bicycle parking and alternative transportation parking methods should have priority above automobile parking. Providing battery electric bicycles instead of parking would rank above bicycle parking. Every university through which I have circulated has "parking" problems. The problem is not parking, it is the lazy folks that complain about parking who feel an american given right to drive their cars. I ride my bicycle to CSU from the Spring Canyon Park, 3-5 miles each way. The furthest I have bicycle commuted in to CSU was from Loveland, ~12 miles each way. My supervisor rides his bike into CSU from ~10 miles away. Yes, I have been hit by a car while riding home on my bike, and no, it doesn't hurt that bad, I rode my bike home that day. What ever the outcome, I will not utilize any of the parking infrastructure discussed herein and believe it to be a frivolous expense. Last I heard the university mission was not to provide parking! There are many research groups at CSU who could put that funding to better use more in line with the university mission.
• Option not considered but used at many campuses – no parking passes for freshmen who live on campus
• For the Parking. Out on the foothills campus, we are not currently paying for parking. Since none of the public transportation listed reaches the Foothills campus, it seems rather petty to make us pay for parking when we have no other options.
• My main hope is that the Administration be more transparent than they have on previous occasions. The campus is probably not ready for another INTO or stadium conflict. Even though the Administration swore decisions would be transparent, they have not been and individuals and groups, including, SCP, Admin Pros, and Faculty are now being very aggressive with their rebuttals.
• If the VPO says she called for feedback, but the information was not complete, it isn't going to be pretty. Such is the word on the street.
• I find it difficult to have a preference to one system over another without really knowing how the parking situation, overall, will change in the next three to five years. With major changes and developments happening campus wide, parking as it exists now will have to change. Do you know if PTS has mapped how the lots may be laid out across campus once major construction projects (notably the health center and the stadium) are complete? I think knowing where lots or future garages will be located would be essential to determining which model would be preferable.
• I am indifferent to the two parking strategies. I do not currently park on campus and have several options available to me. My only question is, would enforcement change with either? Right now, when CSU is on break, parking restrictions are not enforced in certain lots. Will this continue to be the case? I find occasional need to park in the lots during these time periods and the lack of enforcement is a nice benefit.
• Barb, for what I do, I get a serviceman permit which is more than an “A” permit although it allows me to park in State and Serviceman slots, what would the impact be for that permit?
• I use the MAX or ride my bike from the South Transit Center every day. But once a week I like to go to EPIC for lunchtime hockey and it’s a pain to take the bus to Drake where I leave my car with my hockey gear so I can drive to EPIC and back. Once a week I would like to park on campus to save the extra 20-30 minutes of commuting time to and from EPIC at lunch time. Also, once a month or so I might have a doctor, dentist or other appointment. I try to schedule these in the mornings so I don’t have to leave work mid-day, take the bus to my car and return the same way. It would be nice to park on campus on those rare occasions. If you could streamline the

temporary permit process for the occasional times I have to park on campus, it would make mass transit commuting much easier for me. A punch card with 25 punches would probably be perfect if it is a reasonable price. I might need 2 of those in a year at most.