University Assembly Campus Infrastructure Committee

Campus Infrastructure Committee
Monday, February 13, 2012
4:30–6:00pm
B16 Day Hall
MINUTES

I. Call to Order

S. Murphy called the meeting to order at 4:45pm.

Present Members: N. La Celle, M. Lukasiewica, S. Murphy, A. Nash, E. Smith

Absent Members: D. Brooks, K. Fahey, M. Hatch, P. Horrigan, J. Lee, M. Leung,

Also Present: A. Epstein, D. Lieb

II. Approval of Minutes

D. Lieb proposed a couple of amendments to the minutes. The committee members reviewed the amendments and having no further changes unanimously voted to approve the minutes from November 22, 2011.

III. Business of the Day

a. Kyu Whang

K. Whang introduced himself as the Vice President of Facility Services. He then began discussing Resolution 2, regarding the creation of single stalled, no gender restrooms. K. Whang mentioned that he received many emails from outside the University from people who thought that the resolution was getting rid of men and female restrooms. He explained the change as being no different than a bathroom on an airplane. K. Whang has been in contacted with the different colleges’ facilities especially campus Life since this directly effects them. He said they are pretty much in line and that the only concern is creating something that has not been thought about previous to the installment of the resolution, specifically concerning fixture count.

K. Whang then proposed a modification to the resolution to provide clarity and make the resolution manageable in the years to come. Instead of a flat rate of five million dollars issued for the changes, there should be a threshold so that the amount can fluctuate with inflation and the economy. He also suggested a change in the wording from “single stall” to “single occupant.” Finally, K. Whang brought up a point of clarification that rather than change every single occupant toilet it should be framed so that there is one single occupant restroom per building, which would allow uniformity with the current and new buildings. He stated that if only one restroom had to be converted per building then timing would be very quick with very little issue regarding fixture count. N. La Celle proposed an amendment to the resolution stating that o page two the first line should be changed since it implies that all current single stalls will be converted as opposed to only one per building. S. Murphy will be sending the revised resolution to al of the members and the Campus Infrastructure Committee decided to bring the final version of the resolution to the University assembly meeting on February 21, 2012.

b. Proposal for Increased Parking fines and Penalties (D. Lieb)

D. Lieb explained that over the last twenty years parking fines have been constrained to a maximum of fifty dollars since that was the assumed maximum. However, most of the fines and fees have steadily been increasing and are almost to fifty making almost not difference in penalty for different offenses. D. Lieb stated that the fine for illegitimate parking in a handicap spot should be increased from fifty dollars to one-hundred dollars, which is the fine that most other institutions utilize. The transportation group looked into raising the fines and discovered that the only fines that are capped at fifty dollars are the ones for the University. The group would like the proposed changes to take effect July 1, 2012. D. Lieb believes that none of the increases will seem too severe except possibly the fines that are being increased from fifty to seventy five dollars.

The floor was then opened for questions. A. Nash asked if D. Lieb has seen an increase in the number of violations. D. Lieb stated that there is no formal count but that since fines are still being issued it is still a problem. He said that parking enforcement is a form of costumer service in which people pay for a spot and the people ticketed are the ones who knowingly spark in others’ spots. S. Murphy asked if the handicap spots will be getting signs that state the fine for parking without a permit? D. Lieb said that this had not been proposed but that it may be a good thing to include. A. Epstein questioned whether there was a plan for regularly evaluating and raising the fees and if there was a number the transportation group is looking for in the reduction of handicap fines? D. Lieb stated that the fines will go up similar to how the parking fees are increased. He also mentioned that there is no specific number in the reduction of handicap fines but that hopefully there will no longer be a need to write them altogether. S. Murphy asked for numbers regarding handicap fines so that a resolution could be drafted to take to the university Assembly. D. Lieb stated that handicap tickets have been benchmarked but the information has not been formally evaluated. He also asked the Campus Infrastructure if the group wanted to decided if a resolution was needed or if the changes should just be done and then the group could provide information regarding the new changes. A. Epstein stated that for raising fines it would be good to have the University Assembly voice a resolution. The issue as to whether the information should be formally proposed in a resolution was discussed and the members decided to e-mail S. Murphy in regards to what action they believe should be done.

N. La Celle asked D. Lieb was the ratio is of handicapped or accessibility impaired to regular permits issued? D. Lieb explained that there is an ordinance that required a one to twenty five ratio. The University currently has more handicap spots than that ratio since there are people who visit the campus that cannot be account for normally. The use of these spots is monitored and the number of handicap spots is adjusted accordingly. Finally, D. Lieb requested time on the agenda for the next Campus infrastructure meeting on February 27, 2012.

IV. Old Business

a. Questions from a Graduate Student

S. Murphy mentioned that he received an email from a graduate student regarding parking permits and fees for graduate students. D. Lieb showed the committee a graph explaining that a major change occurred in 2001, which put everybody into the same category for parking permit fees. The graduate student also mentioned that the staff and faculty have access to e-permits and they only p[ay 74% of what graduate student pay. D. Lieb explained that everyone who parks on campus is subsidized and that some spaces are lower and some are much higher. The average surface space costs approximately $8000 so it is expensive to cover parking areas. The faculty and staff expenses are off put by the employee benefit pool. D. Lieb also explained that students cannot have fees deducted from their payroll whereas employees can. However, he stated that to change this it would have to go through the payroll office. S. Murphy asked if there was a formula for pricing as to what percentage is subsidized for faculty, staff, and graduate students. D. Lieb stated that the student fee is set to the parking garage, which is the second highest fee; however, students are given some choices in regards to which lots they would be most convenient for them. There was also some discussion on TCAT and A. Nash suggested possibly having all of the students pay a small amount so that everyone can receive a discount instead of just having one class have a free bus pass for the entire year.

V. Open Forum

a. Booting (D. Lieb)

D. Lieb explained that the transportation board is on the verge of introducing booting in place of towing. It would not involve a change in policy just how it is enforced. He stated that the first choice used for violations would be booting instead of towing. This change would involve a sixty-dollar booting fee instead of the towing fee and some of this fine would be given to the University, whereas with the current towing system the University is not receiving any compensation. S. Murphy asked what the procedure is for booting. D. Lieb said that if a car was booted there would be a bright orange notification stated that the person should not move their car and it will include a number the person can call to pay the fine and have the boot removed. The line will be covered 24/7 and fines can be paid with credit card instead of cash. D. Lieb mentioned that some triggers for booting would include five or more unpaid tickets or outstanding tickets. N. La Celle asked if the final trigger would be another violation that would instigate booting or would cars be sought out? D. Lieb answered that a little of both would happen but that to have your car unbooted you would only have to pay the booting fine and then later the outstanding tickets.

b. Green Billion

S. Murphy introduced the topic by explaining that the Green Bilion is a new project that many Universities are becoming involved with. The idea behind it is that a lot of universities put together a fund for which green research can then be funded. Then if a university would like to implement an energy saving initiative, they can borrow funds from the group to be repaid back from the money saved with the energy efficient product. S. Murphy stated that he will talk to the undergraduate student trustee to see if he is interested in becoming involved with this project. A. Nash stated that it would be good to look into if there are any large projects coming up in the future which may need funding help. She stated that Cornell has already done a lot in regards to saving energy and that joining the group may not be beneficial if the only projects in the future are smaller.

VI. Adjournment

The Campus Infrastructure Committee meeting was adjourned at 6:06pm.