Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

Parking Fee Project (RD)

Mt. Hood Community College Unofficial Report

Should Mt. Hood Community College Implement a Parking Fee Program (PFP)?

May 16, 2004

By Jason Michael White

Executive Summary

At this time, the recommendation as to whether or not Mt. Hood Community College should implement a Parking Fee Program (PFP) is based on mixed input. Implementation of this program would assist in providing a means by which the college could either substantially or totally sever the need to tap into the general fund in order to maintain or upgrade the parking facilities. It might also allow MHCC to hire additional Public Safety officers to help curb the alarmingly high volume of automobile related crimes committed on campus, or to increase the technology used in monitoring the facilities. However, the MHCC Board of Trustees has maintained free parking so that students’ total cost for attending MHCC can remain relatively low¹. Students support this agenda. In a recent survey (survey details can be found in Section 2.) only 14.08% of applicable students said that they would be willing to pay the fee, while 55.63% of applicable students polled said they would not be willing to pay the fee. 30.28% of students polled said that they might be willing to pay the fee, which indicates that marketing the gains/benefits of the program to students would be beneficial in securing a majority of support for the program².

The data obtained from the survey reveals that a majority of students may not be aware of the high volume of risks associated with the conditions of the parking facilities, or of the comparatively high number of automobile related crimes committed on campus. Problems identified through research suggest the following:

	MHCC’s automobile theft rate is higher than Portland Community College, Clark Community College, and Lewis and Clark College’s (as reported in the Jeanne Clery Act) on a ratio-comparative scale. MHCC currently employs more Public Safety officers than PCC and CCC (given that PCC officers operate across their district, but keeping in mind that CCC has more officers per student than MHCC), but the high level of automobile related crimes at MHCC suggests that there is a problem with the monitoring procedures used on the campus. MHCC employs one more officer than Lewis and Clark College, but the high officer-to-student ratio at L & C suggests that a specific number of officers per student can help to curb automobile related crimes committed on campuses.
	The Public Safety office is either understaffed or lacking in successful procedural guidelines or communication. These issues need to be addressed in order to curb the low quality of facilities monitoring, and to assess whether or not there is a need for an increase in officers at MHCC.
	The parking facilities – including pavement, signage, planters, and tree conditions – are deteriorating³. The deterioration of the pavement poses risks that could lead to automobile damage; planters are unkempt and poorly maintained; signage is lacking and extremely confusing; and the trees spread throughout the boarders and interiors of the parking facilities create a possible safety risk because of uprooting and overgrowth⁴. Contractors estimate that it would cost around $550,000 to repair the parking facilities at MHCC³.
	MHCC’s Board of Trustees has attempted to maintain a stable level of revenue by increasing student tuition in an attempt to undermine the continuing decrease in state community college funding. This “increase-versus-decrease” trend has remained stable. Since the 2000-2001 fiscal-years the school has seen decreases that average 2.67% per year in state community college funding, and a 2.67% increase in student tuition per year during the same period⁵. As this trend continues, it is imperative that MHCC look internally for funding options.

Consequently, three solutions have been formulated:

	Maintaining the status quo is still a viable option. The recent increase in student tuition lends to the possibility that the school should wait until the next main cycle of students enter MHCC. Waiting would allow for resources to be set aside for the program’s initial implementation and marketing costs.
	A marketing program could strengthen student support for the Parking Fee Program (PFP). This could dramatically increase the level of support by informing students of the high level of risk associated with automobile related crimes committed on campus, as well as the funding decreases that the school is experiencing, and the benefits associated with improving the parking facilities and the resources available to the office of Public Safety.
	Implementing a parking fee program would be cost-beneficial, and would create another self-sustainable program on campus (programs that pay for themselves). This could help to reduce, or completely eliminate, the need to set aside much needed resources to manage the parking facilities, and might also allow for capital improvements on the parking facilities. Depending on the actual fees and fines assessed for the program, additional Public Safety officers could be hired.

I recommend adherence to all three of the solutions. The benefits of the program far outweigh the student-contribution requirement, and the school would be taking steps to ensure that more tuition increases may not be warranted due to the money saved by creating more self-sustaining programs (at least for a while). Regardless, instituting a variety of self-sustaining programs on campus etches away at our reliance on outside sources for funding. The overall intent of the MHCC Vision and Mission Statements⁶ support these options; safety, aesthetics and resource retention, as well as improved program offerings are aspects of the issues involved in this report.

Introduction

The purpose of this report is to analyze the possibility of instituting a Parking Fee Program (PFP) at Mt. Hood Community College. Those decision-makers at MHCC who read this report may find that this college can continue to maintain strong support for the needs of the students while also finding additional internal alternatives to funding. This is an especially important option considering the continuing decrease in state funding⁷. As can be evidenced at other colleges, parking fee programs are a significant source of revenue⁸. But with relevance to the goals of MHCC, the program would serve as a means by which the college can continue to keep the needs of the students at the forefront of their decisions, while also improving the services offered to students. This report will show that by creating a Parking Fee Program (PFP) there will be less of a need to tap into the general fund to maintain the parking facilities, and/or would allow for the increase in much needed signage, patrol officers, and/or general maintenance. I envision that the program will be one of a self-sustaining nature, and that although the initial stages of the implementation will require an investment, the money put into the program will be returned, albeit slowly. I hope to show that there is not only a need for a PFP at MHCC, but that it would be a largely positive step in the right direction. It is my hope that after key decision-makers on campus read this report that the inherent pros of such a venture will be clear. I plan to outline our current situation, the background and problems facing the parking facilities and the Public Safety department, offer a comparative glance at already operating Parking Fee Programs (PFP) at other colleges, and offer a clear and concise recommendation for a course of action pursuant to the goals and vision of this college.

Methodology

In analyzing the existence of similar programs at other colleges in the area – including their programs structures, reasons for implementation, costs to operate, and revenue – interviewing key members of MHCC’s staff, and analyzing the current relevant conditions of MHCC’s Public Safety and parking facilities in contrast to other colleges, as well as pertinent statistics gathered or forwarded to me upon request through various interviews via telephone, email, or person-to-person, a moderately accurate picture has been drawn. Research included browsing websites of various colleges, MHCC’s own websites and online documentation, and some bookwork. Other research was accumulated through a series of interviews with various department staff, administrative staff, and other individuals. A major survey was conducted that incorporated the opinions and concerns of students into the some areas of the Research/Findings section and played a key role in determining a final recommendation.

Personal Research

Most personal research involved obtaining information using the internet. Mt. Hood Community College, Portland Community College, Lewis and Clark College, and Clark Community College’s websites provided institutionally published and admissible documentation. Analytical comparisons were drawn between the various colleges to determine causal relationships between the main themes focused on in this report. Analysis included comparing the different program structures of Public Safety offices, Parking and Transportation offices, and some general school information. Most budget information for MHCC and PCC was obtained using the internet, and the sources of cited documents and their addresses via the web can be found in the bibliography at the end of this report.

Interviews

Interviews were conducted after most of the personal research had been accomplished. Interviews were conducted via email, telephone, or person-to-person. Questions about the various programs, clarifications on certain questionable or confusing information, and general questions to ascertain opinions were the main focus of the interviews. Interviewees included Gary Murph, the MHCC VP of Administration (email, telephone, and person-to-person); Don Oliver, the MHCC Supervisor of Public Safety (person-to-person); Diana Fosvall, the MHCC Transportation Coordinator (telephone and person-to-person); Michael Kuehn, the PCC Parking and Transportation Coordinator (email, telephone, and person-to-person); Al Sigala, the director of MHCC’s Media and Public Relations office (person-to-person); Dr. Joseph Fischer, the Associate Vice President for Student Life (email); Rhonda Brandeberry, a Financial Aid staff member (person-to-person); Dr. Ron Russell, a presiding member of the MHCC Board of Trustees (telephone and person-to-person); Mark Morgan, the Lewis and Clark College Parking and Transportation Coordinator (email).

Student Input Analysis²

Student input is very important in determining if additional fees should ever be assessed. The survey was administered between 05/13/04 and 05/14/04. Packets of 25 surveys were given to 13 instructors at Mt. Hood Community College, 3 of which took an extra packet to administer to an additional class. Some classes contained more or less than 25 students, resulting in a cumulative of only 181 total students surveyed. Out of the 181, only 180 surveys were usable. The margin of error is reflective of the following variables:

	Randomness of the survey is lacking. Tests were administered at varying times at the same location (MHCC), with a possibility of surveys being administered to the same student more than once.
	Utilization of the various departments at MHCC was crucial in acquiring a diverse sample. Although most major departments were incorporated into the survey, some were not. This is somewhat balanced by the fact that some surveys were administered at night, morning, and afternoon.
	The minor background (gist) at the top of each survey has been interpreted by some individuals as, "too much of a sway in an obviously biased direction," or, "leading." I feel that while the purpose of a survey is to find out what people think, the controversial nature of this topic warranted some explanation of the purpose of the research, and some of my opinions, so that the students might be able to look at both sides of the issue -- instead of one side (cost).
	Personal subconscious preferences could have played a part in choosing the instructors that appealed specifically to the surveyor, though randomness was stressed in the search for willing souls.
	As you can see from the graph below, the exponential equivalent of 180 applicable students surveyed corresponds to approximately +/- 8.33 % margin of error. This means that the opinions expressed by the students on the 180 surveys can deviate with contrast to the opinions of all MHCC students. If (hypothetically) 50 % of students polled said that they didn't like butter, [(50 % - 8.33 %) to (50 % + 8.33 %)] would be the margin of error. Or, (41.66 % to 58.33 %) of the students at MHCC would tend to agree with the 50 % of the 180 students polled. There were no duplicate surveyees to my knowledge.

The Margin of Error Graph may still be loading, or your may not have to correct plug-ins to display the graph.

Research

I. MHCC Financial Situation Overview

The Fiscal Environment Overview section from the 2003-2004 Budget Message states, “Mt. Hood Community College (MHCC) has experienced a substantial change in its revenue base over the past nine years. The college’s primary source of revenue shifted from local taxes to state allocations, with the latter source of revenue declining approximately 14% over the past two years. Consequently, the college must rely on tuition revenue as a larger percentage of college annual revenues,” it continues, “The state’s current economic problems are projected to continue for several years. Consequently, Mt. Hood Community College must continue to take action to resolve this difficult financial situation⁷.” A result of this was the recently approved $2 per credit hour increase in overall student tuition. A recent report titled, “An Important Finding of the CCbenefits Analysis: by funding community colleges, state and local governments are able to reduce taxes,” states that, “Based on research to date (analysis of nearly 160 colleges), state and local governments provide community colleges with between 40% and 70% of their annual support¹¹.” This is supported by comments from the FY2003-2004 Budget Messages, “[MHCC’s] general fund operations are heavily dependent on state appropriations. The FY 2004 budget now reflects 45% of the college’s revenues coming from the State of Oregon⁷.” From 2000-2001 to 2003-2004 the college has seen a decrease in state funding equivalent to 2.67% per year (as it applies to the respective percentage of total funds acquired during those years from various sources), while the college has increased its dependence on tuition and fees acquired from students over the last four years by 2.67% per year, effectively trying to keep pace with the decrease in state funding by raising student tuition. The 2000-2001 MHCC Adopted Budget only relied on $9,560,281 (state funding was $20,504,795 for that year) from student tuition and fees as part of the general fund; reliance on tuition and fees has increased to $14,750,000 in 2003-2004 (state funding was $19,700,000).¹² As state funding continues to decrease due to economic pressures, the need to find alternative sources for funding becomes an increasingly viable option. Indeed, MHCC has attempted to form numerous partnerships with various businesses throughout the community, and has endeavored to rent and lease college facilities to curb the gap in funding¹³.

II. Parking Facilities

A. Background Situation

Mt. Hood Community College currently has 3,146 parking spaces across the main Gresham campus (137 are reserved for special use).¹⁴ These spaces have always been free for students – except when special events warranted charging for the use of those facilities. The parking facilities across the main campus of MHCC are deteriorating. In an interview with Gary Murph, the VP of Administration, the conditions of the parking facilities at MHCC were discussed. He expressed that the conditions of the parking facilities are important, but the overall goals of the college place those facilities low on the list of priorities.³ In a survey conducted from 05/13/04 through 05/14/04 it was found that 29.44% of the students polled felt that parking facilities were lacking (the margin of error is projected to be approximately +/- 8.33%; see appendices for more detailed information on the survey results). Of the 21.67% who answered “Undecided,” a majority were either part-time students or non-driving students.² This means that half of the students at MHCC either think the facilities are wanting, or are undecided. Mr. Murph also said that the school hopes to begin some of the repaving within the next year, but also added that, “…the cost to repave the parking lots and campus roadways was approximately $550,000.¹⁵” There has been no release of the 2004-2005 Budget Message to determine if his statements align with figures usually presented in the document. The MHCC 2010 Master Plan details that there is a possible relationship between the layout of the parking facilities and auto-related crimes⁴ (see Public Safety – Automobile Crime).

II. Parking Facilities

B. Financial Situation

Contributing sources to help determine the monetary allocation for MHCC’s parking facilities (this includes maintenance, upkeep, upgrades, and additions) are extremely ambiguous. Funding to upgrade and maintain the parking facilities seems to be a part of the Facilities Management section of the general fund, but no precise figures could be obtained.¹⁶ This is due, in part, to the nature of repairs made on the parking facilities. Gary Murph stated that when portions of the parking facilities need to be repaired the materials have almost always been purchased long beforehand, and are used when the need arises (filling potholes) and not purchased every time they are needed. This means that it may be difficult to identify expenditures (this is especially problematic since the recommendations given in this report have nothing to compare to when deciding if the cost of maintenance and upkeep would warrant a PFP). Although custodial salaries play into some of these figures, isolating an exact number is difficult due to the interconnectedness of the different custodial staff. As of the 2003-2004 MHCC Proposed Budget there has been no evidence of money set aside for the purpose of “saving” for the aforementioned repaving of the parking facilities (the money set aside for Facilities Management category of the general fund has remained relatively stable from 2000-2004). Although the money could come from the Special Projects Reserve Fund, no mention of this has been obtained throughout the interviews conducted for this project.¹⁶

III. Public Safety

A. Automobile Crime

Interviews with Don Oliver, the MHCC Public Safety office Supervisor, revealed that crime on campus goes relatively unmentioned on a campus-wide scale.¹⁷ Comparisons between Portland Community College (Sylvania campus), Clark Community College, and MHCC showed alarming figures regarding automobile-related crimes (see Appendix A4). From 2000 to 2002 there were 38 automobile thefts at MHCC, while PCC had only 16 during the same period, and CCC totaled only 11 in the same period. MHCC employs 7 full-time Public Safety officers, one supervisor, as well as “…several part-time officers and students¹⁸.” The Portland Community College Department of Public Safety currently employs one director, four sergeants, and 16 officers (this is spread throughout the district, including their various other PCC campuses).¹⁹ Lewis and Clark College currently employs one supervisor and 6 officers. L & C campus crime reports (from the Jeanne Clery Act) show only 1-2 automobile thefts per year²⁰ during the same periods as MHCC, CCC, and PCC’s Jeanne Clery Act documentation. Clark Community College employs “…a Director of Security/Safety, who is a full-time staff member; three full-time Campus Security Officers; eight part-time Campus Security Officers; a full-time dispatcher; and three part-time Dispatchers / Parking Checkers. The department also includes the campus switchboard operator and uses student workers during quarter sessions to staff the Security/Information Desk²¹.” These comparisons show that a relationship exists in possibly determining the number of officers required to successfully curb auto-related crime on campus (possibly a certain number of officers per student). When students were asked whether or not they felt like security and enforcement at MHCC was satisfactory, 51.67% answered “Yes,” 20.00% responded “No,” and 28.33% felt “Undecided.” Of the 180 students polled in the survey, 30.00% said they either knew someone who had had their car stolen/vandalized/other, or that they had been the victim. This hints at the possibility that a majority of students are not aware of the high level of auto-related crimes that occur on campus because it has not happened to them, or anyone they know, and suggests that their opinion of security and enforcement rests on the same lack of information. MHCC has more Public Safety officers on a ratio-comparative scale than PCC (given that PCC’s officers operate across their district), but MHCC has a higher rate of auto-related crimes. CCC has a very similar number of officers and office-personnel compared to MHCC, yet they have a very low occurrence of automobile theft. Although there may be other variables contributing to this information, the fact still remains that the quality of security and enforcement at MHCC is low. MHCC has one more officer than L & C, but since MHCC officers must monitor a larger facility and student body than Lewis and Clark College it makes sense that there should be more officers available. This is supported by the unduplicated student headcount at CCC²² (half that of MHCC), and the presence of more officers than even Lewis and Clark College and Mt. Hood Community College when compared side-by-side.

III. Public Safety

B. Financial Situation

The level of funding that goes into Public Safety office at MHCC is difficult to determine. Gary Murph stated that while each department has spending limits (caps), it is hard to isolate exact figures due to fluctuations in departmental spending.³ Extrapolation from various contributing MHCC budget resources reveals that Public Safety monies are allocated in the Institutional Support category of the MHCC general fund.¹⁶ At the time of this report there was no response from Don Oliver concerning my inquiries into his office budget (Public Safety). The general fund had allocated $8,255,654 into the Institutional Support category. Certain assumptions can be obtained from general information provided from various interviews and online sources, but this information would be purely speculative. (This section will be continued when Don Oliver has finished compiling his spending information in his report during the week of 05/13/04, and can be viewed on my website at https://www.angelfire.com/blog2/parkingfeeproject).

V. Parking Utilization

The most recent analysis of parking utilization was conducted by Diana Fosvall from 01/31/00 through 02/10/00. While this may seem to be dated research, there have been no major shifts in enrollment since that time. Bearing in mind that 3009 spaces are available to the students and teachers at MHCC, and 137 are designated as “special use” spaces, percentage of usage may have fluctuated slightly with shifts in “public” and “special use” assignments. MHCC parking utilization was approximately 59.16% (an average of the 4 different counts done over the 2 weeks).¹⁴ These figures will help to determine the cost of the parking permits. The most desirable lots were also identified, and will help in the analysis and development of “By-Zone” permit prices (outlined in the Recommendations section of this report).

IV. PFP Models at Other Colleges

A. Portland Community College

Portland Community College was required to start charging for parking by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).²³ Since the latter part of 1993 they have charged for parking, and at this time their Parking and Transportation department is a self-sustaining program. All money gained goes back into the program, and surplus is used on capital improvements. Parking permits have varying prices. Term-length parking permits are $25.00, with different types of term-length permits priced lower depending on the time of day. Free permits are granted to carpoolers with 3 or more passengers. Monthly permits are $10.00, and all day single permits are $2.00. PCC also tows and places boots on automobiles that do not display permits (this creates a deterrent for students who had simply been fined before this practice – the return on fines under this practice was relatively low – the new practice offers an incentive for students to pay their fines before they can retrieve their automobile).²⁵ In an interview with Michael Kuehn, the PCC Parking and Transportation Coordinator, he expressed that even though “the system works for PCC, there are still [problems] in the program.” The close proximity of community homes and apartments allows students who do not want to pay the fee to park in a variety of places outside of PCC jurisdiction (neighboring streets). This calls into question the community-impact issues related to charging for parking. The Sylvania campus of PCC (the primary contrasting college in this report) has an unduplicated headcount of 26,688 students²¹. Mt. Hood Community College (Gresham campus) has an unduplicated headcount of 28,436 students (a difference of only 1,748 students).

B. Lewis and Clark College

The Lewis and Clark Parking and Transportation program is also one that is self-sustaining. Through email communications with Mark Morgan, the L & C Parking and Transportation Supervisor, some very useful information was obtained. The Lewis and Clark program was implemented in 1999 as a component of a Conditional Use Master Plan Agreement with the city of Portland. L & C charges fees on a semester system, and the fees range anywhere from $3.00 (daily) to $165.00 (semester). Revenue for L & C during the 2003-2004 FY was budgeted at $650,000, with expenses budgeted at $558,815 (the surplus is being used to pay for a project to construct new parking lots as well as public sideway improvements). There are only 3,071 students attending Lewis and Clark College. A total of 733 students purchased semester parking permits (the total sales of semester permits total $120,945 for the 2003-2004 FY). From September 1, 2003, to April 29, 2004, 13,326 daily permits were purchased (daily permit sales for that period total $39,978). Mr. Morgan said that the program received 78.5% of the Parking and Transportation revenue from parking fees; 6.2% from subsidized bus passes (the college pays a 50% subsidy for students who purchase bus passes); 15.4% is acquired through citations and fines. 47.2% of the operating budget revenue is spent on contractual shuttle bus services, 18.4% for staffing, and 11.5% to pay for the bus pass subsidy. He expressed his satisfaction with the program, elaborating that the program allows the school to put money acquired through various other means towards other areas of the school instead of a singular service.⁸ Parking regulations and fines are similar to other colleges in the area, and will be an important part in determining the shape of any future MHCC parking rules and regulations.

C. Clark Community College

Clark Community College is the main comparative source for determining if our present system is mirrored elsewhere. Clark Community College (CCC) does not charge students for parking. However, they do charge faculty, staff, and administrators to park. This fee is required, and the revenue is “…utilized for parking operations, including parking enforcement, parking lot maintenance, and for those transportation demand management and commute trip reduction activities and programs permitted by law⁵.” CCC is currently developing a new parking facility that would add 400 spaces to the campus. They are discussing the possibility of requiring a fee from students to help cover the financing of the facility. There is no student PFP relevant to this report at Clark Community College, but it is still interesting to note that they rely on minor fees from college personnel in order to provide certain aesthetic and mandatory services. So, while they may mirror MHCC in that they do not have (at present) a student-contribution requirement, they may inevitably resolve to require said contribution.²³

Conclusions

Other colleges have seen far better results from having a Parking and Transportation program than they have seen beforehand. Automobile-related crimes committed at Portland Community College, Lewis and Clark College, and even Clark Community College (bearing in mind that although they do not charge students, they still charge faculty, staff, and administrators) campuses remain low in comparison to MHCC. Other colleges are able to direct money that would have initially gone into Public Safety and/or Parking and Transportation departments into other vital parts of the school. A PFP at MHCC could possibly allow for the hiring of additional Public Safety officers, or allow for studies to be conducted that would explore the effectiveness of our present officers. The very nature of any self-sustaining program lends relevant support to colleges that have implemented a PFP.

Though MHCC may not have a problem with parking utilization (from the standpoint that there may/may not be enough parking), the time will come when we do have a problem with parking availability. The equation [1,284(1.03^t) = 3,146] shows that MHCC will exceed present parking capacity in approximately 30.16 years (the 1.03 represents the school’s goal to increase FTE by 3% per year⁷). So, the real issue isn’t whether or not there is a need for a PFP due to lack of parking-space availability – the real issue is whether or not MHCC is going to take advantage of a system that could yield benefits. Of course, just because other colleges have a PFP does not mean that we should simply implement a PFP just for the sake of having one. MHCC should resolve to implement a PFP only when those decision makers feel that it is truly prudent.

Realistically, there are other factors to consider. Cars pollute. Studded tires ruin pavement. Students that utilize a specific service should have to pay for that service, especially when they are causing the widespread deterioration of that service. An interview with Gary Murph confirmed this opinion. In our interview he admitted that students were effectively ruining something that was being provided to them seemingly for free (he added that in one way or another all students at MHCC are paying for a variety of things). When asked whether or not non-driving students should have to pay for the upkeep and maintenance of those facilities, and whether or not those same students should have to pay for increases in patrol officers due to the high volume of thefts on campus, he had no comment.³ So, while there may be a positive side to the PFP (providing increased benefits to students-drivers, and decreasing general fund allocation for those services), there is also a slightly negative side (students-drivers are causing damage to facilities that 21.11% of students polled say they don’t even use) – the school, as well as student-drivers, will have to forego some money.

Recommendations

Marketing to Students

Due to the recent increase in student tuition, implementing a parking fee at this time would not be prudent. However, a marketing strategy should be assessed before the next cycle of students begin enrolling at Mt. Hood Community College. The marketing strategy should focus on relaying the benefits of a PFP to students. The benefits highlighted in the strategy should include:

	Increased Public Safety officers and overall security quality.
	Increased funds for future capital improvements
	Less reliance of those programs that feed off of the revenue generated by the PFP to tap into the general fund.
	Improved parking facilities. This includes repaving, facilities upkeep, and tree pruning.

* The adopted marketing strategy will likely differ from this, and all rough points will have been hammered out through extensive research.

Student Incentives

Another marketing strategy could be the evaluation of a “By-Zone Guarantee” assessment to determine the cost of particular permits. This means that those areas of the parking facilities that are considered “premium” (see appendix A5) should have a price reflecting that demand. Since MHCC does not have a problem with parking availability, it is reasonable to assume that offering “guaranteed” parking to students would increase acceptability of the program.

The only foreseeable problems with this option are the contractual agreements that teachers have with MHCC (they are guaranteed free parking), and overlapping student use of those facilities. Since the contract does not specify where the parking has to be, an analysis should be conducted to determine a fixed location for instructors who utilize free parking. However, instructors should not be exempt from purchasing guaranteed permits. Since students have overlapping schedules, and multiple students may have purchased permits for the same “space” in a particular lot, a method/set of regulations should be constructed detailing the responsibilities of students to make sure that if they are finished with their primary classes that they move their automobile to another location. This location will be designated as “Secondary Guaranteed Parking,” and will be unique to each student. The reasoning is that while certain lots may have a higher premium demand, lots that are lower on the list should be delegated in situations where a student may need to remain parked on campus, but another student is just arriving to their primary classes/MHCC obligations. For example, the parking agreement between MHCC and the student could state the primary parking location, and the secondary parking location.

Conversely, those areas that have less demand should reflect the lack of usage. This would serve two purposes. The inexpensive permits may prompt students to start utilizing those parking lots that are usually semi-vacant, and may also allow for higher-priced permits due to the competition-inducing nature of the “By-Zone Guarantee.” Obviously the “By-Zone Guarantee” permits would be sold in limited quantities, depending on the number of spaces in a particular lot. While it should not be the intention of the school to place part-time students lower on the list of importance, the fact that full-time students are at MHCC for longer periods of time, and are usually spending more money for that time warrants more benefits. This situation could be avoided by assigning certain boundaries on all lots for use only by those students who purchase “Part-Time By-Zone Guarantee” permits. The boundaries of all of the lots should reflect enrollment trends from previous years.

Other obvious incentives include those listed in the subcategory, Marketing to Students.

Implementation

PFP allocation of initial monies necessary to quickly and effectively implement the program should commence as soon as possible. Since the actual costs associated with initial program implementation vary from school to school, only a few specific figures could be obtained. Since the initial implementation need only satisfy the most basic of requirements for a PFP, the following recommendations have been assessed:

	Incorporating the administrative requirements of the program throughout already existing MHCC departments (Public Safety would patrol and fine, while the cashier’s office could sell the various non-daily permits) would reduce the need to create additional departments.
	Permit stickers should be manufactured (preferably the kind that can be applied via adhesive to an automobile). These stickers should display a color (time-length dependant), and two letters (referring to the primary and secondary lots).
	Daily parking-permit machines should be purchased, and placed at strategic locations throughout the campus parking facilities.
	If it is decided that more security officers are needed, they should be hired before initial implementation. Any other staff or faculty positions that are deemed necessary should be hired beforehand as well.

The great thing about this type of program is that there are numerous models in the region. MHCC has the luxury to take pieces of these programs that they feel are representative of MHCC standards, and ignore the other parts. The program should have at least the following:

	Permit pricing that reflects the goals of the program. If the school wanted to fund the repaving of the parking facilities with revenue from the parking program, then the prices applied to the various permits should reflect this goal. Additionally, the increase in staff necessary to create a basic working PFP and other costs associated with program implementation should be reflected in the price.
	There is the option of subsidy. The program could remain self-sustaining, eliminating the need to tap into the general fund while also being able to provide for itself the necessary resources, and the surplus gained from the program could be placed into a PFP reserve fund. This fund would be a means by which the college can improve the quality of the facilities by saving until the goal is reached, or using the savings as a subsidy from other funds for capital improvements.
	If the permit pricing warrants the option, analysis of Public Safety should be undertaken as soon as the funds necessary become available. Unless the school plans on not marketing increased security as a benefit of the program, either Public Safety officers, better camera surveillance, or modifications to the layout of the parking facilities need to be addressed.

Adherence to these recommendations will ensure that the problems identified throughout this report are met with swift and decisive opposition. While this program may not serve as a method to encourage students to find alternate means of transportation, additional options for incentives are available:

· School officials may find that offering a highly discounted/free “By-Zone Guarantee” permit to carpoolers of a certain minimum capacity would serve as a strong incentive.

· Creating a stronger relationship with Tri-Met so that better bus pass agreements can be achieved. As is evidenced in the email from Mark Morgan, a certain percentage of revenue from the Lewis and Clark College Parking and Transportation program is used to provide for a subsidy of bus passes. This makes sense when looked at from an environmental angle. Since 59.16% of students at MHCC drive to school², the high volume of automobiles causing consistent, albeit mostly unnoticeable damage to the beautiful MHCC campus, can be “balanced” by using some of the money from the program to help other students find more environment friendly alternatives.

· Community impact is a difficult thing to deal with. However, the majority of roadways surrounding MHCC are designated “No Parking”, and contain a threatening density of traffic. The MHCC (Gresham) campus has only two off-campus options if students decide that they don’t want to pay the parking fee. The first is the theatre parking available across from the school. However, signs are properly displayed that warn non-customers that their vehicle may be towed if they choose to park there. The other problem is on the south side of campus. Near the aquatic center on 17^th St. is a parking zone. It would be beneficial for MHCC to find a completely legal way to curb student use of this area (relatively small, actually) so that Greshamites do not begin to feel displaced.

Costs

While the some costs are only hinted at throughout this report, this is due to the complex nature of retrieving and extrapolating data related to current budget information. The generality of the various publications and documents provided by the MHCC website proved depressing. Real numbers could not be obtained through interviews, leaving this researcher with a sense that maybe they interviewees don’t even know how much they’re spending. While it would have been nice to have these figures (since the whole basis for the report lies on whether or not the PFP could generate revenue equal to, or in excess of, current parking facilities and Public Safety budgets), they are not totally required. The need for a PFP is still high. Any assistance at this point in the college’s financial situation is better than nothing, and since the program would in way or another assist in alternative funding for one of the aforementioned programs/services, it follows that implementing a PFP still be a step in the right direction.