Simple, board members are first and foremost shareholders, thus no special treatment e.g.: one can’t go to the head of the line. Butt out!!

Keep each of the lists in date of application sequence. Yes one for each parking area, e.g.; indoor upper, indoor lower, outdoor front, outdoor back, etc.

If a space becomes available in the indoor upper area, offer it to the shareholder on the top of list. If the shareholder declines, offer the space to the next shareholder, and so forth. The shareholder that declines goes to the end of the list declined with a new date, the date of offer and decline whichever is later.

Same goes for all the other spaces.

In this case a shareholder can be on all four lists. Having accepted any slot in one area, the resident remains on the other lists, untouched.

If one accepts an indoor upper space one can be still listed on the other lists. If the shareholder’s name is the next selected on any otherlist, the shareholder can either accept or decline (e.g.: go to the bottom of the list).

Even if the shareholder accepts a spot, e.g.: upper indoor, the shareholder can still go on the same list (bottom of course) in hopes of a better location at a future time.

Date of purchase has no meaning; only the date of application for one or more lists.

And, most importantly, a board member may never see the list, nor can the building manager reveal the contents of the list. Yes, the building manager must be trustworthy.

The date of closing should have nothing to do with the garage list. In our building it works on a first come first serve basis. You send a request to the managing agent and they put you on the list. When a spot becomes available the agent calls the next shareholder on the list. it doesn't make a difference if you have an indoor and outdoor if you wan tan inside spot you go on the list when you request. if no shareholder wants the spot than we can give it to outsiders.
The best is if you have your managing agent take care of the list so you don't have to get involved in any scuffle between the shareholders

Using the closing date is the only way to ensure the accuracy of the list and a fair process; otherwise you are always dealing with the human error factor.

The suggestion of multiple lists is clumsy and I believe is a waste of time for your managing agent. We maintain a single list and publish it on a regular basis. Shareholders are added to the list on request, using their closing date as the date of record. When a space becomes available, they have a period of time in which to accept or reject it. We will try to accommodate justifiable special requests, such as those for handicap access, but otherwise it's strictly a take it or leave it offer. Bottom line - keep it clean and keep it simple.

Our coop has 2 lists: the first is to get into the garage, according to the date a person asks to be listed; and the other for people already inside who want to switch parking places when one opens up. The latter has recently caused a fuss because an "insider" felt she should have first dibs to the space because she parked inside longer than the other person who asked for it (but who asked for it weeks earlier). Has anyone dealt with this situation before?

Also, does anyone have experience with shareholders who have left their name on the list, but have moved & kept their apartments? Some here firmly believe they should be offered the spot when their name comes up even if they return once a year. (Our waiting list averages 10 years). The rationale is that the shareholder might move back (and that does happen). We now have 3 people who have moved and have been offered a spot & turned it down, but their names stay at the top of the list.

I'd appreciate your input.

That's exactly why we only maintain one list. As I mentioned, we will try to accommodate extenuating circumstances but we will not shuffle people around every time a spot becomes available. That's also why we use the closing date as the date of record for the first request to remove any doubt as to who was first.

Another requirement is residency. Shareholders can live anywhere they want in the interim, but once their name rises to the top of the list, they must show proof of residency as part of the parking agreement by submitting a copy of Page 1 of their NYS tax returns with our address as primary residence. Also, their car must be registered in NYS with our address as the address of record.

Finally, if a shareholder is offered a spot and turns it down, their name comes off the list. If they wish to re-apply after refusing the offered spot, the date of record becomes the current date.

So that I understand and believe that we are following based on closing date... if a sh currently has an outdoor space and would like an indoor garage, it would be offer to the sh (when their names comes up on the list) but AFTER we have proceeded down the list to the next waiting named sh and their decision th take the apce indoor or out. They problem that we have is that when we have to go back up the list, who really knows to ask if one want an alternate space rather that simply moving down the list till it is exhausted. Comments!

You can have a fair system whether you maintain one list or multiple lists. It's something that needs to be tailored to your building. How much work are you willing to put into designing and managing your queueing system? Do you have enough disparity of resources to make multiple lists worthwhile?

For indoor vs. outdoor spaces, two lists seems like a good idea. A resident who wants a space can -- and probably will -- be on both lists. When a space becomes available, the person on top of the relevant list will be asked whether they want the space, and whether they want to remain on the other list. It doesn't matter whether they already have a parking space: if they do, they have the option of switching to the newly available space. If they decline the space, they are removed from that particular list, though they may choose to try again from the end of the line. Their queue position on the other list is unaffected.

There's also the issue that people in general are lousy at math, much less queueing theory. (I've gotten into arguments with people who honestly believe that the provably inferior "One line per cash register" algorithm is preferable to a single queue for the next available server.) You need to ensure that your system is easily understood and *perceived* as fair. If it's too complicated, people are going to suspect unfairness even where none exists.

Finally, I don't agree with using closing date to determine queue position. Suppose Mr. A moved in ten years ago and never wanted a parking space. Mr. B moved in nine years ago and *always* wanted one. One day, Mr. A has a change of heart and suddenly vaults ahead of Mr. B, who has been waiting patiently for almost a decade. How is this fair?

I don't buy the argument that closing date is the only reliable way to validate ordering. At the time the request is made, have the managing agent mail back a formal reply on letterhead stationery, noting the date and time that the person was added to the queue. A resident can use this receipt to establish priority, if necessary. Publishing the waiting list(s) on a regular basis would also help: people will know their relative position, and disputes are less likely to occur later. If someone sees that they are missing or misplaced, they can straighten things out long before they get to the top of the list.

I agree with CDT about not using the closing date as a criteria for a spot on the parking list. When a person wants to get on the parking list, they notify the property manager in writing. We distribute and post the rules so everyone is aware of them and we also post the list so people can easily see where their names are.

However, shareholders are asked over & over if they want to get in. They just stay up there at the top of the list even when they don't use this as their primary residence. One non-resident without a car was even allowed to stay at the top of the list. !?!?!

Thank you very much, Board Prez, for your reply. The residency requirement is a major matter, and your other response about turning down a spot is particularly apropos. The other criteria I'd like to see on the registration is that that person owns the vehicle.
We try to accommodate all the shareholders, but it can get out of hand, too. I'd like to see set of rules applied to everyone.
Thanks again.

Thank you to "Board Prez" as well