Parking Lease

Frequently Asked Questions

June 14, 2012

Why is the University considering leasing its parking operations?

Video: Geoffrey S. Chatas - Benefits to Ohio State

What is the benefit of receiving and investing a large, lump sum of money up-front as opposed to just investing the profit from the parking operation each year and letting our investment pool grow that way?

Video: Geoffrey S. Chatas - Protecting Our Future

Overall, how does the University feel about the bids it received? Does it make economic sense to continue with this process?

Video: Geoffrey S. Chatas - Exceeding Expectations

June 13, 2012

Does the contract guarantee that the potential parking management firm would get a certain level of revenue each year or in total at the end of 50 years?

The contract does not set or assure revenues for the potential operator. The University would keep the full up-front payment of $483 million from the operator – regardless of how much revenue the firm receives over the life of the contract.

This may seem like a risk for the potential operator, but the robust bids we received illustrate that in today’s economy, investors are looking for stable, long-term sources of income. Our parking operations represent that kind of stability – making this a worthwhile investment.

June 8, 2012

I don’t understand how you arrived at the revenue projections for this potential parking lease or why you can’t support the Long Term Investment Pool by being more efficient and reinvesting revenues from the current parking operations into the Long Term Investment Pool.

We based our initial projections for the potential revenue on a $400 million parking lease. Assuming the university continued to receive the average rate of return that we've received on our investments over the last 30 years, a $400 million investment would earn $36 million in the first year.

Part of this money – approximately $19 million in the first year – would be reinvested into the long-term investment pool. As the investment pool continues to grow each year, it would produce greater returns.

The other half of the first year’s earnings – approximately $17 million – would be available for spending to support our priorities or for reinvesting to receive greater returns in future years.

We would have significantly more earning power than we would on the yearly revenues from parking permit sales, which would bring a much larger long-term benefit to the university. Now that we have more information available from the bids, there is a document available on the parking proposal website that may help explain this. Just go to Resources and click on the Follow the Money Infographic. There is also information about how the potential revenue would be allocated.

While $483 million is a lot of money, it doesn’t sound like enough to achieve all of the goals the University has mentioned.

The University’s goal of becoming a top ten public university by 2020 will require a refocusing of its resources and talents as well as an identification of new sources of funding.  We would not solely rely on revenue from a potential parking lease. The university is looking to identify a variety of new funding streams such as technology commercialization, fundraising through our capital campaign, streamlining operations and increased operational and purchasing efficiency. One funding solution alone will not sustain our future, but together, multiple solutions can help provide long-term viability for our university that will allow us to grow and improve, not just survive.

$483 million is significantly higher than the minimum threshold the University initially set. Why would a vendor pay so much to lease our parking operations?

There has been a lot of discussion regarding the bids. While it is difficult to know every factor bidders used to determine their offers, some of the current theory includes that there was a fierce amount of competition as well as that in today’s economy, investors are looking for very stable, long-term sources of income and our parking operations represent that – making us a very worthwhile investment.

This issue has become hotly contested, and while it may seem like a step forward for the university, why doesn't the issue simply go to a vote by the students, staff and faculty?

There is no other issue that is put to a campus-wide vote at Ohio State, and this is no different.  Many other policies or changes (Non-smoking policies, semester conversion, etc.) have involved unpopular decisions at one point and a vote was never taken for them.  In this case, the University did what we always have done: investigate and explore the issue, have a hearty, rigorous debate, and then move forward with the decisions our leadership make. It is worth noting though, that resolutions in favorof the proposal were supported by faculty, staff and student governance.

Even a 5.5 percent increase in parking costs is much higher than our yearly salary increases. When will the two match up?

You cannot directly compare the percentage increase on parking permits to the percentage increase in salaries. A 2 percent salary increase means significantly more than a 5.5 percent increase in a parking permit fee because the base numbers are much different. Using the parking rates for the upcoming permit year, a 5.5 percent increase equates to:

• $41.58/year and $3.46/month for an “A” permit
• $21.48/year and $1.79/month for a “B” permit
• $14.55 /year and $1.21/month for a “C” permit
• $9.87/year and .82/month for a “WA” permit
• $5.12/year and .43/month for a “WC” permit

But a 2 percent salary increase equates to:

• $600/year and $50/month on a $30,000 salary
• $900/year and $75/month on a $45,000 salary
• $1,200/year and $100/month on a $60,000 salary

May 29, 2012

What has been the rate of yearly increases over the past ten years, so that we can compare this to the proposed increase over the next ten years?

The university regularly raises rates to maintain services, so this would not be a change over what we’re currently doing. Here is a breakdown of the increases in our recent history:

1999: 25% increase
2000: 20% increase
2001: 15 % increase
2002: 9% increase
2003: 10% increase
2004 - 2009: 5% increase each year
2010: 3% increase
2011 – 2013: 5% increase each year

We added the annual cap language for the first ten years so you would know exactly what kind of rate increase to expect. The cap for the remaining years would be set by the Midwest Consumer Price Index or 4%, whichever is potentially higher—which would guarantee that any additional rate changes are tied to national and regional standards, so it could be lower than the caps we’ve established for the first 10 years. 

If cancellation of an agreement would occur, what would happen to the money provided up front by the vendor?  Would OSU have to give back millions that it has already spent and/or committed?  What would be the implications for both OSU and the vendor if cancellation happened?  Might this affect OSU's credit rating, which is rumored to be one of the reasons for the proposal in the first place?

If the cancellation occurred because of a default by the vendor, then the university would keep the upfront money. If the contract was cancelled because of a default by Ohio State, then we could be required to pay back a portion. A default by a vendor that resulted in canceling the contract could actually be a positive for our credit rating, since we would be allowed to keep the upfront payment.  If we are required us to pay back some portion of the upfront proceeds, then there could be a credit rating impact. However, we are not looking at this potential funding solution to preserve our credit rating. Instead, this is one of many funding solutions that would allow us to take on less debt in the future and still fund our core mission.

Chicago is losing money due to a very similar parking contract they signed for 75 years.  Please do some research into their matter and see what mistakes they made or what they are sorry for in their contract.  Can you mention a few different places you have investigated and what you found? 

We spent more than 12 months researching a potential parking lease before deciding to take the first step of releasing a Request for Qualifications. This time was spent understanding every aspect of our parking system and how it might work under a potential leasing arrangement.  In addition, we also engaged experienced advisors, such as Morgan Stanley, Jones Day and Desman Associates, who have each worked on a variety of similar transactions. They were able to assist us in learning from the experiences of other organizations, including the city of Chicago.

Unlike Chicago, money generated from any such lease we enter into would go directly into our long-term investment pool. It would not be used for one-time spending. The interest earned would provide continual funding for teaching, student support, arts and humanities, and campus transportation improvements. One way to protect the funds would be to set up four distinct endowment funds for the areas above. Any changes to the specific funds would require a Board of Trustees resolution. Also, in Chicago, there were no caps on rate increases so the leasing operating was able to increase rates by 400 percent immediately.  Our proposal would keep rate increases in line with historical university increases.

Would any new vendor still assist motorists if they need a battery jump, to have a flat tire changed, their car doors unlocked, or if they have run out of gasoline, etc.?

We would require any vendor to agree to a broad range of service standards covering everything Transportation & Parking currently does today to support parking – including the current service offered for battery jumps, flat tires, running out of gas, etc. The operating standards we included in the agreement any potential vendor would have to sign would be non-negotiable and must be addressed in a timely manner or the operator would put its contract status in jeopardy.  We would use customer feedback and contract performance reviews to monitor operator performance.

May 21, 2012

Communication has stated that our investment pool will be increased by 20%. Is the intent to keep the principal of $400 million intact with the earnings funding the stated projects? Or, will the university tap into it for other uses? Also, will there be follow up communication on an annual basis?

If we were to accept a bid of $400 million, one option would be to set up four distinct endowment funds, one to facilitate faculty hiring, one for student scholarships, one for the arts and humanities, and one to enhance campus transportation.  It would require a Board of Trustees resolution to tap the funds for other uses, which is the way all endowed funds within the university currently work.  The plan would be for the funds to grow over time, providing additional support for the four major areas.  We would fold these funds into our current annual reporting requirements, which are presented to the Board every year. This update would be public and would cover all of the funds from a potential parking lease.

A long-term benefit to our community would be an environment which was truly pedestrian-friendly.  There are parts of campus that are quite dangerous to walk to - Kinnear or Kenny Road locations, for example. The buildings on Lane Avenue provide training which are important to many in our community, but it is quite difficult to get there without a car. While bus routes improve the accessibility, they could be more comprehensive, and it would be much more pedestrian-friendly if there were sidewalks and paths to all of the OSU buildings in the area.

A multi-model approach to transportation and mobility is an important part of the university Framework Plan, and the overall transportation plan for the higher speed roadways such as Kinnear, Kenny and Olentangy River Road is to construct multi-use paths that could be used by pedestrians as well as bicycles and rollerblades.  The buildings along these roadways are all noted as lacking this amenity, and as development plans for the area occur, every effort to include these paths will be made. 

Publicly, Ohio State has stated that we’d need to see proposals of at least $375 million before moving forward.  Do you think that by publishing this number  that potential vendors may undercut their bids?

There was a lot of discussion about whether or not we should publicly state a minimum bid threshold, and decided stating the minimum publicly would not hurt our ability to garner bids because this was a competitive bid process. We also designed the Request for Proposals with the condition that once we receive the bids on May 30, if two or more bids are within 10% of one another, we will have a “Best and Final” round of bidding. This potential ensures that competition will be strong and we will get the highest possible bid value.

Currently the T&P employees are our co-workers, eligible for the same benefits as all university employees.  What is to keep a private company from increasing their profits on the backs of employees by driving down wages, labor standards, and benefits?  How does that further the goal of “one university”?

If we move forward with a parking lease, the vendor would manage the parking operations with their own staff.  We consider our Transportation & Parking employees are valuable members of our university community. No one will be forced to take positions with a potential vendor. Transportation & Parking employees may have the option of interviewing with the chosen vendor, and if offered a position, could make the choice based on whatever information the vendor provides regarding salary and benefits. But, if they want to stay on at Ohio State, we will help them find jobs within the university so that they may remain university employees, with university benefits.

If the university goes through with an outside vendor will employees still get the advantage of being able to pay for parking by paying monthly and having it come directly out of their paycheck as a pre-tax deduction?

The answer is yes, payroll deduction would still be available and would still occur on a monthly basis. While collecting fees would be the responsibility of the vendor, the university would stay involved in the processing in the background. Because of this, automatic payroll deduction, which allows parking permits to be purchased pre-tax, would continue to be available. Here’s the link to a column with more information about this.  http://www.osu.edu/parkingproposal/updates-answers/additional-details-on-potential-lease.html

May 14, 2012

Can you talk about the retained costs, including CABS, the debt service, etc?  Those costs would largely wipe out the $16M net proceeds of the administration's $400M example.  Furthermore, to increase the faculty body by 10%, for example, would require, at a minimum, $30M annual rate.  (Rough calculation: 300 faculty at a bare minimum of $100K/yr for new assistant professors for salary and benefits).  Even forgetting the retained costs for the moment, how do you make $30M come out of $16M?   

When looking at the parking proposal, it is important to keep in mind that no one solution will fully fund the University’s very ambitious goals to move up in the national rankings and continue to flourish as a world-class institution. The two specific improvements you have mentioned, increasing faculty by eight to 10 percent and retaining or enhancing our campus bus service, represent an increased commitment for routine operations as well as additional capacity. They will need to be funded through multiple sources, such as the Huntington Agreement, fundraising through our capital campaign, and increased operational and purchasing efficiency, as well as the potential parking lease.

A recent post did not adequately answer the question of what would happen if OSU implemented additional alternate transportation plans that would reduce demand for driving and parking on campus. Would the future agreement hamper promotion and investment in alternative modes of transportation because the reduction in demand for parking would force the University to compensate the parking concession for lost revenue?

The University has no intention of stopping its sustainability plans. The parking agreement was written to give the University the greatest amount of flexibility possible.  It includes conditions about the construction of new garages, the movement or reclassification of parking spaces and the potential growth of our existing campus. We tried to add information up front so that each vendor will submit a bid fully knowing the University’s plans and how they will need to fit into them. Obviously, potential vendors would want protection on their investment so the contract would allow a vendor the opportunity to make a case for receiving compensation if they could prove economic harm. But, in order to receive compensation, the vendor would have to prove that the University’s actions specifically impacted their profits. 

The response that the contract (assuming one is accepted) can be changed is accurate.  However, what wasn’t mentioned is that the change would likely come at a significant cost; the operators are counting on lucrative change requests happening over the long-duration time frame of this proposal. Are these likely costs included in the current projections?

Unlike potential construction projects where we must complete the work in order to keep our facilities and campus in good working order, in this case, we will only move forward if the benefits outweigh any possible conditions the University would have to follow as part of the agreement.

Since the proposed increase in parking fees of 5.5 to 7.5 percent per year for the next ten years exceeds the average annual increase in faculty salaries, isn't this plan a de facto tax on faculty incomes?

The University is very sensitive to the argument that faculty, students, and staff view the potential increases as a form of a tax on their incomes.  This is just not true.  Parking rates have increased historically and would be expected to increase annually regardless of which organization would operate the parking garages and lots. Increases were used to maintain current operations and fund new ones. One of the reasons we added language to limit cost increases into the RFP was so that there would be no surprises for anyone – potential vendors or our faculty, staff and students. Private parking companies are very aware of what balance is required to be efficient as well as make a profit. Each vendor will make their bid fully knowing what their potential increases would be capped at for the lifetime of the contract.

May 7, 2012

What happens if, say, 25 or 30 years from now, the company with the parking contract goes bankrupt?  Where would that leave the University?  I don't think that's an idle concern -- many companies have lifetimes shorter than 50 years.

We are closely screening each potential partner’s financial stability and would only make an agreement if that partner meets our stringent requirements.  Also, we would always own our parking garages and lots. Any agreement the University might enter into would include language to protect University interests and that would allow us to move quickly to reclaim management and protect our assets. Additionally, there are provisions in the agreement which would allow the University to replace the operator promptly if service were to decline during any period of financial instability of our partner.

You say that the contract would limit the annual parking rate increases.  So, if the company finds it isn't making enough money, it would cut back on services.   So my question is: Would the contract provide the University with the power to cancel the contract at any time if we are dissatisfied with the service?

There are provisions in the agreement that protect the University – up to and including replacing the operator and/or potentially cancelling the contract - in the event the operator is not following all of the stated operating standards.   The University would continue to closely monitor the performance of the parking operator through customer feedback and contract performance reviews.              

Would the contract continue to provide free parking for emeritus faculty?

Ohio State is fortunate to have an active group of emeritus faculty continuing to contribute to the university’s vibrancy. The Board of Trustees recognized these contributions and gave certain privileges for emeritus faculty; included among them is free parking. Under a new parking lease, if we enter into one, this would remain in place.

 Would the parking fee still be pre-tax? 

Yes, faculty and staff would still be able to use the payroll deduction option to pay for their parking passes. 

Is the Request for Proposals available on-line for members of the OSU community (or even for the general public)?  Isn't this a public document?

The document is available for review by appointment for faculty, students or staff in the Treasurer’s Office at Riverwatch Tower, 364 W. Lane Avenue. 

Is it be required that the number of parking places on campus not decrease while parking is under the control of the successful bidder?

Actually, there is a bank of 2,200 spaces we could reduce as necessary, without penalty, if we need to close or remove parking spots because of construction or changes to our campus layout. 

I wonder how privatizing would assure that adequate maintenance of parking facilities would be assured.  What incentives would be put in place so that the company in charge would carry out adequate and timely repairs and maintenance, especially of parking garages?

Our contract would not rely on incentives to compel the operator to meet its contract requirements.   There are non-negotiable operating standards that must be addressed in a timely manner or the operator would put its contract status in jeopardy.  We would use customer feedback and contract performance reviews to monitor operator performance.

Currently, emeriti get free parking if they apply for it.  Does the Request for Proposals cover such details, and does it include incentives to assure that such reasonable policies are retained?

Ohio State is fortunate to have an active group of emeritus faculty continuing to contribute to the university’s vibrancy. The Board of Trustees recognized these contributions and gave certain privileges for emeritus faculty; included among them is free parking.  Under a new parking lease, if we enter into one, this would remain in place.

Why doesn't OSU figure out how to be as efficient as a private company?

Private parking companies are in the business of running and maintaining their parking garages and lots.  Our mission is teaching, research, and service and we do our best when we focus our talents and energies on our core mission.

I believe parking garages are built with money from the sale of bonds, and OSU has to pay these bonds off.  At present, I think it's done with fees we pay to use the garages.  If the garages are sold, how does OSU finance paying off the bonds?

 A portion of the proceeds generated from a potential transaction may be used to pay off some or all of our existing debt related to the parking assets.  

Why aren't these questions being address in the publicity the university puts out?  I get the feeling someone is trying to hide something. 

There have been countless meetings with different campus groups –Senate Steering, Faculty Council, Senate Fiscal and the  Parking Advisory Group,  to name a few, as well as frequent Town Hall forums over the last six months.  The purpose of each meeting was to share information and ask for questions and comments in an open and public setting.  A website also has been developed:  www.osu.edu/parkingproposal  and its being constantly updated with new and pertinent information.

Would the same permit classes (student, staff, faculty, and retiree) remain in place, without reclassification or redefinition?  

The current classification of parking permits would remain in place for the foreseeable future with the exception of where a change in allocation of existing permits is already being planned due to parking demand exceeding current capacity. Specifics for these areas would be communicated to customers when re-allocation plans are in place, which is expected to be in the fiscal year 2013 permit year. These planned changes would occur regardless of whether parking operations are leased.

Recall retirees get their parking permits (A permits) at a lower rate.  This helps to encourage rehired retirees to continue to contribute to the University and encourages other retirees using the campus to maintain close ties to the University.

Retirees provide much-needed services to the university, and we recognize this.  Their parking permits would continue to be available at a lower rate.

My husband retired with over 30 years of service to OSU and has been receiving a discount on his yearly parking pass.  Would this benefit cease when parking is privatized? Retirees provide much-needed services to the university, and we recognize this.  

Their parking permits would continue to be available at a lower rate.

I’m not sure what “leasing the operations” of T&P means or how it would make money for the University.  If you’re just leasing the operations over to a different company, doesn’t that mean WE’RE paying THEM to essentially run T&P now?  How does that generate revenue?

Operators are bidding on the opportunity to manage our parking garages and spaces.  They provide us with an upfront sum (we have previously stated it must be greater than $375 million), and then recoup their outlay and expenses by collecting fees for parking permits over the term of the lease.  The term lease is used rather than purchase because we would always own our parking garages and spaces.  

Would parking lots/garages then be used for outside constituents, eating up parking spaces that are already too scarce?  Would students, faculty, staff, etc. LOSE parking spaces by leasing the operations? 

Each day, approximately 100,000 students, faculty, staff, patients, and visitors come to Ohio State’s Columbus campus and find parking in our garages and lots.  Leasing our parking operations is not expected to affect this pattern simply because it would not change our core missions of teaching, research, service and patient care.    In addition, there are specific provisions in the contract which prohibit a private operator from selling parking permits to outside constituents.

Our Porsche club has always held summer events in the CX lot on Ackerman.  We were told this year that the lot was sold and we couldn’t reserve it.   Could you comment on that? 

Because of the conversion to semesters, our summer break is much shorter than in the past. This has resulted in a limited number of weekend days that could be reserved for different auto clubs’ use.  Unfortunately, the lot requested by the Porsche Club was already reserved. Going forward, the use of the lots would still be on an as-available basis at the discretion of a vendor. 

As an emeritus I currently receive a free parking hanger. Would that policy continue if the parking is leased?

Ohio State is fortunate to have an active group of emeritus faculty continuing to contribute to the university’s vibrancy. The Board of Trustees recognized these contributions and gave certain privileges for emeritus faculty; included among them is free parking.  Under a new parking lease, if we enter into one, this would remain in place.

I would like to request a soft copy of The Ohio State University's recent parking RFP.

The document is available for review by appointment in the Treasurer’s Office at Riverwatch Tower, 364 W. Lane Avenue.   

April 2012 

Why would Ohio State consider leasing the management of its parking operations?

Tough economic times mean we need to find new ways to pay for critical academic needs, including more tenured faculty and student scholarships. So we must be innovative and willing to rethink the status quo.

How would you spend the money?

We would invest in a long-term pool. If the lease agreement brings in $400 million, for example, we could invest:

$200 million on key academic programs—and hiring and supporting new faculty

$75 million on student scholarships

$50 million on key areas such the planned arts corridor

$75 million to improve transportation and make campus easier to navigate 

How did you come up with the $400 million figure as an example? Why are companies willing to invest that kind of money in parking?

To arrive at the $400 million estimate, we worked with Morgan Stanley, Jones Day and Desman Associates, who considered various scenarios. Investors are seeking opportunities with stable returns and low levels of uncertainty—like a parking investment at Ohio State.

What’s happening with this now?

We have issued a Request for Qualifications for parking vendors to find out who is interested in bidding. We will not choose a company based on money alone, however. We are also looking for a firm that will maintain or even improve current parking services. If we do decide to go forward with the lease, Ohio State will still own its parking garages and lots.

In addition, we’ve put together a Parking Advisory Group to help guide us. The group has set up town hall meetings and other discussion sessions with faculty, students, and staff. Plus, they are reviewing operating standards and a “concession” agreement—which would govern how the lease works. Group members are:

Larry Anstine, CEO, University Hospital

Geoff Chatas, Senior Vice President, Business and Finance (co-chair)

Chris Culley, Senior Vice President and General Counsel (co-chair)

Vijay Gadepally, President, Council of Graduate Students

Javaune Adams-Gaston, Vice President, Student Life

Brad Harris, Chief Administrative Officer, Arts and Sciences

Jay Kasey, Senior Vice President, Administration and Planning

Heather Link, Chair, University Staff Advisory Committee

Kathleen McCutcheon, Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer

Nick Messenger, President, Undergraduate Student Government

Jim Rathman, Chair, Faculty Council

Robert Schottenstein, Member, Board of Trustees

Bruce Weide, Professor, Senate Fiscal Representative

How will you share the Parking Advisory Group’s findings?

We will publish information from the group to faculty, staff, and students in OSU Today, and on a website (http://www.busfin.ohio-state.edu/parkinginfo.aspx). We will also send emails with key information to faculty, staff and students. We are committed to making this a transparent process. If you need more information or have questions, please let us know.

How long would a parking agreement last?

Long-term leases raise more money, so any lease agreement would likely be between 30 to 50 years (with 50 years being the longest).

Will my parking rates go up?

The company cannot raise rates more than 7.5 percent annually for the first 10 years, which is the average amount that rates have gone up for the last 12 years. That cap is built into the resolution authorizing the lease. Rates have gone up an average of 5.6 percent in the last 10 years and 4.5 percent in the last five. Companies interested in the lease have all of these numbers and we expect them to propose rate increases lower than 7.5 percent. To be sure, keeping rates as low as possible is a big priority. 

Under the parking agreement, will parking for free events such as move-in remain free? Will regional campus faculty continue to be able to purchase permits at less than Columbus rates? Will emeritus faculty still have free parking? Will the university have to pay the vendor for use of parking spaces now reserved for university vehicles or departments?

Specific details will need to be negotiated, but our goal is to ensure that services provided today will stay the same. This means, for example, that parking arrangements for major university events such as move-in, Commencement, and football games would not change.

Will you be able to limit parking rate increases for graduate associates?

We’re currently discussing this question and are working on a solution. 

Can you assure faculty, staff, and students that services will remain the same or get better?

Any firm chosen will have to follow current operating standards—which have been crafted by Transportation and Parking employees. An operator would face penalties for failing to meet standards and would have to go through remediation. Any serious violations could mean the agreement would be terminated and the university would take back over operations.

Who will provide security for parking lots and garages?

Security will continue to be handled by the university’s Department of Public Safety.

How will CABS be funded going forward?

The university is dedicated to continuing to fund CABS at current service levels as well as improving services as needed.

Will the university have the ability to continue existing Framework and sustainability plans?

Yes. Those plans have been shared with all bidders who have been informed that the university will continue to move forward on those initiatives.

What will happen to the Transportation and Parking staff?

Any staff members affected by the parking changes will be able to interview with the new firm. If the firm doesn’t offer them a job, or they choose not to accept one, the university will offer them a position. We will honor Civil Service rules for classified staff and those covered by the CWA union contract.

Will OSU have enough flexibility to remove parking garages or build new ones? What happens if OSU wants to build a new parking garage or lot?

The agreement spells out three options: (1) The operator can build and operate the facility. (2) We can require the operator to build it. (3) We can build it and operate it outside of any formal agreement. Also, we can eliminate a certain number of spaces without penalty.

What is the timeline for a decision?

Final proposals will be due later this Spring/Summer. A decision is expected no later than fall 2012. 

Besides parking, what else is the university considering leasing or selling?

We are evaluating other options that might help us raise funds for our core academic mission, including leasing or selling the airport and golf courses.

Does the state constitution allow you to lease state resources?

Yes. The Ohio Revised Code says the university may lease facilities such as parking lots to private parties.

Are you considering all of the potential changes in technology, fuel and driving patterns that could occur during such a long time frame?

Yes, any operating agreement will expect the parking vendor to study data, implement new parking solutions, and continually review existing practices. Specifically, the parking vendor will be expected to continue or expand upon existing sustainability efforts, including

LimelightTM - a wireless lighting control system

solar power for metering devices, the Hertz car sharing program

bicycle air pumps

parking spaces for low emission

fuel efficient vehicles, vanpool benefits

a carpool program

The University’s pilot a program for electric car recharging stations is also considered in the agreement. To help, the University will partner with the vendor and conduct experiments in technology, allow data collection and provide a real‐life campus laboratory.

Will there be an opportunity for the university to decrease parking locations if more public transit options become available? Is the university considering more park-and-ride options for remote parking?

Regardless of who manages the parking garages and lots, the University will always be able to adjust to meet a changing environment. Remote parking and public transit already are ideas for a more pedestrian-friendly campus, and these certainly will be studied. And, any decisions regarding Park and Ride options, and bus transportation (CABS) from remote lots and other locations on camp will be made by the University.

Will a parking vendor be required to maintain security in the garages and after-hours in the surface lots?

Safety and security are the University’s highest priorities. The parking vendor will be required to develop and document policies and procedures to guarantee the public’s security and safety. Also, the parking vendor must abide by all rules of Ohio State Public Safety, which will continue to hold authority over the garages and lots.