LTC 121-2016 City Garages - "Gated" v. "Metered/Enforcement" IAMI BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
NO. LTC # 121-2016 LETTER TO COMMISSION
TO: Mayor Philip Levine and Members l•f the City ommission
FROM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
DATE: March 15, 2016
SUBJECT: CITY GARAGES— "GATED" v. " '_ETERED/ENFORCEMENT"
On March 9, 2016, the Mayor and Commission approved Resolution No. 2016-29311,
related to Item No. C7C, a waiver of competitive bids for a third party credit card
gateway provider for the gated revenue control system for city garages. As part of the
discussion of the item, the issue of whether to manage and operate city garages with a
gated access/revenue control or metered/enforcement system was raised and briefly
discussed.
Resolution No. 2015-29149 was approved by the City Commission on September 30,
2015, and authorized by the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement for a gated
revenue control system in city garages (see Attachment 1). The direction to operate city
garages with a gated access/revenue control system predates certain members of the
current City Commission. For informational purposes, I have attached the September 30,
2015, City Commission agenda item related to this matter and it includes following
attachments which have tabs for ease of reference:
• Attachment 2 - Commission Memorandum with terms, conditions, and key points
related to the Agreement between the City and Skidata.
• Attachment 3 - Staff analysis and due diligence of responsive proposals to the
RFP for Gated Revenue Control System for City Garages.
• Attachment 4 - Staff analysis of "gated v. metered/enforcement" method of
operation.
• Attachment 5 - Walker Parking Consultants Analysis of "Gated v.
Metered/Enforcement" method of operation (City Commission directive to engage
"Walker" to perform the analysis).
• Attachment 6 —After Action
If you should have any questions or would like to meet to discuss in more detail, please
contact Kathie Brooks, Assistant City Manager, at 305.673.7000, extension 6249.
Attachments
c: Kathie Brooks, Assistant City Manager
Mark Taxis, Assistant City Manager
Susanne Torriente, Assistant City Manager
Ramon Suarez, Interim Budget Director
Eric Carpenter, Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director
Marcia Monserrat, Chief of Staff
Saul Frances, Parking Department artment Director
JLM/KGB/SF
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2015-29149
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA,APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT,SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM
ATTACHED TO THIS RESOLUTION, BETWEEN THE CITY AND SKIDATA,INC.,
PURSUANT TO INVITATION TO NEGOTIATE(ITN)2014-170-SW,FORA GATED
REVENUE CONTROL SYSTEM FOR THE CITY'S PARKING GARAGES,FOR AN
INITIAL TERM OF TEN(10)YEARS,WITH TWO(2)FIVE(5)YEAR OPTIONS,AT
THE CITY'S SOLE DISCRETION.
WHEREAS,on May 21,2014,the Mayor and City Commission authorized the issuance of
Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) 2014-170-SW for a Gated Revenue Control System for the City's
parking garages, including centralized processing of data for all of the City's parking garages; a
central monitoring station for intercoms and CCTV at all entrance and exit lanes; and centralized
access control for all garage equipment(collectively, PARCS); and
WHEREAS, on June 27, 2014 the City received five (5) proposals in response to the ITN;
and
WHEREAS, the Committee's ranking of the firms submitting proposals was as follows: 1)
Skidata Inc.; 2)Amano McGann, Inc.;3)LCN, Inc.d/b/a Consolidated Parking Equipment;and WPS
USA Corp. (tie); and 5) Scheidt& Bachmann USA, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, at the September 10, 2014 City Commission meeting, the Mayor and City
Commission accepted the recommendation of the City Manager, adopting Resolution No. 2014-
28720, pursuant to Invitation to Negotiate(ITN)2014-170-SW,for a Gated Revenue Control System
for the City's parking garages; and authorizing the.Administration to enter into negotiations with all
the proposers; to wit: Skidata Inc., Amano McGann, Inc., LCN, Inc. d/b/a Consolidated Parking
Equipment, WPS USA Corp., and Scheidt& Bachmann USA, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2014, the City was notified by Consolidated Parking
Equipment that it had withdrawn its proposal pursuant to the ITN because it had been informed by
3M, the manufacturer of the equipment proposed, that 3M would no longer be producing the
proposed equipment; and
WHEREAS, on February 6, 2015, cost proposals from Amano McGann, Inc., Skidata, Inc.,
and WPS USA Corp.were received; and Scheidt&Bachmann USA, Inc. notified the City that,due
to schedule conflicts, it had withdrawn its proposal pursuant to the ITN; and
WHEREAS,staff held several negotiation sessions with all three(3)proposers, as well as a
request for best and final cost proposals offers; and the Administration received final replies to the
referenced negotiations on May 19, 2015; and
WHEREAS, at the June 10, 2015 City Commission meeting, based on the results of the
negotiations with Skidata, Inc., Amano McGann, Inc., and WPS USA Corp, the Administration
recommended that the Mayor and City Commission authorize the City Manager to negotiate an
agreement with Skidata, Inc., based upon the proposed negotiated Term Sheet attached to the
Memorandum; and
WHEREAS,at the June 10,2015 City Commission meeting,the Mayor and City Commission
referred,to the Finance and Citywide Projects Commission Committee(the FCWPC), a discussion
relating to the different revenue control options for garages, including their fiscal impact and
enforcement component; and
WHEREAS, at the June 10, 2015 City Commission meeting, the Mayor and City
Commission deferred the Administration's recommendation relating to the ITN, pending the
recommendation of the Committee; and
WHEREAS, on July 1, 2015 the item was discussed at the FCWPC and the Committee
recommended that the Administration finalize negotiation on the final contract terms with Skidata,
Inc.for a gated revenue control system for the City's parking garages and present the item to the full
Commission for consideration; and
WHEREAS,at the July 8, 2015 City Commission meeting,the Mayor and City Commission
adopted Resolution No. 2015-29087, accepting the recommendation of the FCWPC and the
recommendation of the City Manager, approving negotiations with Skidata, Inc. based upon the
material terms set forth in the Memorandum; and if the City is not successful in negotiating an
agreement with Skidata, Inc:,authorizing the Administration to negotiate an agreement with Amano
McGann, Inc.; and to present the final agreement to the City Commission for approval; and
WHEREAS, on July 8, 2015, the Mayor and City Commission also directed the
Administration to engage Walker Parking Consultants/Engineers, Inc. to analyze revenue control
systems for the City's parking garages, including but not limited to gated, metered, or alternative
technologies deployed in industry today and asked the Administration to address the equipment
obsolescence issue; and
WHEREAS,the Walker Parking study,,completed on August 10,2015,recommends a gated
parking revenue control system for the ten (10) garages and further advised that obsolescence is
rare in the parking systems, including PARCS; and
WHEREAS,the Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission authorize
the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement between the City and Skidata, Inc.,substantially
in the form attached to this resolution,which contains the terms approved at the July 8, 2015 City
Commission meeting, and also contains the performance bond requirement to address the
obsolescence issue.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION
• OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA,the Mayor and City Commission hereby approve and
authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an Agreement, substantially in the form attached to
this Resolution as Exhibit A, between the City and Skidata, Inc., pursuant to Invitation to Negotiate
(ITN) 2014-170-SW, for a Gated Revenue Control System for the City's parking garages, for an
initial term of ten (10) years, with two (2)five (5) year options, at the City's sole discretion.
PASSED AND ADOPTED .e C %. .*.day of Sept n'IDe(2015. {,` .
ATTEST: :S,•'; ..y'.,� / c,,'
l J� '' INCDRP ORATED: , '
Rafael E. Granado, City Clerk \ "'•.. A . N/Philip Lrev,. �, i 'or
T:I AGENDA 120151September\PARKING\ITN 20'9 :.d'I eyrI . ontrol A•,ee .=—.res.doc APPROVED AS TO
FORM &LANGUAGE
•&FOR EXECUTION
71. `--Th o-1-`5
• City Attorney"ATI Date
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution Approving and Authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an Agreement,
substantially in the form attached to this Resolution,between the City and Skidata,Inc.,pursuant
Y .
to Invitation to Negotiate(ITN)2014-170-SW,for a Gated Revenue Control System for the City's
Parking Garages, for an initial term of ten (10) years, with two (2) five (5) year options, at the
City's sole discretion.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Ensure expenditure trends are sustainable over the long term.
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): N/A
Item Summary/Recommendation:
On June 10, 2015, the Mayor and Commission referred Item No. R7M, Invitation to Negotiate
(ITN) No. 2014-170-SW for a gated revenue control system for the City's Parking Garages to the
Finance and Citywide Projects Committee (FCWPC) for discussion.
On July 1, 2015, the FCWPC discussed the item and approved gated revenue control as the
system by which to operate municipal parking garages. Additionally, the FCWPC endorsed the
recommendation of the City Manager, pursuant to ITN 2014-170-SW for a gated revenue control
system for the City's parking garages to Skidata, Inc.
On July 8,2015;the Mayor and Commission authorized the Administration to finalize negotiations
with Skidata, Inc. pursuant to invitation to negotiate (ITN) 2014-170-SW for a Gated Revenue
Control System for the City's Parking Garages and bring the Agreement to the City Commission
on September 2, 2015, for ratification. In addition, the Administration was directed to engage
Walker Parking Consultants and have them perform an analysis analyze and recommend revenue
control systems for•the City's parking garages, including but not limited to gated, metered, or
alternative technologies deployed in industry today. Walker recommends a gated system in the
City's ten garages and their analysis is attached.Also,the proposed Agreement between the City
and Skidata is attached. Administration Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Financial Information:
Source of Amount Account
Funds: 1 $303,000 142-6176-000674
2 362,000 463-6176-000674
3 471,000 467-6176-000674
4 2,696,000 480-6176-000674
5 400,000 480-0463-000349
OBPI Total $4,232,000
Financial Impact Summary:
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
Saul Frances
Sign-Offs:
Departmen. irector Assistant Manager City Ma!alter
SF KGB AI JLM/°
T:W GENDA 120151September\ParkinglITN 2014-170 Revenue Co roI Agreement.sum.doc
MIAMBEACH AGENDA ITEM R71-1
DATE '3o-��
ATTACHMENT 2
®
•
1915• 2015
MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive,Miami Beach,Florida 33139,www.miamibeachfl.gov
• COMMISSI i►N MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Philip Levine and Members if the City Cot mission
FROM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager l' _��
DATE: September 30, 2015 r.
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MA OR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLO,-IDA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT,
SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM ATTACHED TO THIS RESOLUTION,
BETWEEN THE CITY AND SKIDATA,INC.,PURSUANT TO INVITATION
TO NEGOTIATE (ITN) 2014-170-SW, FOR A GATED REVENUE
CONTROL SYSTEM FOR THE CITY'S PARKING GARAGES, FOR AN
INITIAL TERM OF TEN (10) YEARS, WITH TWO (2) FIVE (5) YEAR •
OPTIONS, AT THE CITY'S SOLE DISCRETION.
BACKGROUND
On June 10, 2015, the Mayor and Commission referred Item No. R7M, Invitation to
Negotiate(ITN) No. 2014-170-SW fora gated revenue control system for the City's
Parking Garages to the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee (FCWPC) for
discussion. The item was referred to the FCWPC seeking guidance on whether to
operate municipal garages with a gated revenue control system or as metered
parking. •
On July 8, 2015, the Mayor and Commission authorized the Administration to
finalize negotiations with Skidata, Inc. pursuant to invitation to negotiate(ITN)2014-
170-SW for a Gated Revenue Control System for the City's Parking Garages and
bring the Agreement to the City Commission on September 2, 2015, for ratification.
ACTIONS ON JULY 8, 2015
The Administration-was directed to engage Walker Parking Consultants and have
them perform an analysis and recommend revenue control systems for the City's
parking garages, including but not limited to gated, metered, or alternative
technologies deployed in industry today.
September 30, 2015 City Commission Memo
ITN 2014-170-SW Gated Revenue Control System for Municipal Garages
Page 2 of 11
ANALYSIS
The following are the results of each of the two directives issued by the City
Commission.
City of Miami Beach & Skidata Agreement
The Agreement between the City and Skidata, Inc. is attached. 'All goods and
services are consistent with the Term Sheet, pursuant to the July 8, 2015, City
Commission Agenda Item No. R7N. The ITN documents and Skidata's proposal
documents are also incorporated into the Agreement. The following are key
elements of the Agreement:
Scope of Services
In consideration of the Fee to be paid to Consultant by the City, Consultant shall
provide the City with the equipment, work, and services necessary for a state of the
art gated parking revenue control system including real-time centralized processing .
of data for all of the City's parking garages and a central monitoring station for
intercoms, CCTV at all entrance and exit lanes, and access control for the garage
equipment (the "SKIDATA Project"), as described in Exhibit."A" hereto (the,
"Services" or"Scope of Work").
Additional equipment, services or garage facilities may be added to the existing
Scope of Work. Although this ITN and resultant Agreement identifies specific
equipment, services or garage facilities ("items") within the Services or Scope of
Work being provided by Contractor, it is hereby agreed and understood that the
City, through the approval of the City Manager(for additional items up to $50,000)
or the City Commission (for additional items greater than $50,000), may require
additional items to be added to the Agreement, based upon the PARCS pricing list .
contained herein. The pricing list contained herein shall remain in effect from the
Effective Date of this Agreement though Year 3. Thereafter, the pricing list may be
adjusted annually by CPI (Consumer Price Index).
Term:
The term of this Agreement ("Term") shall commence upon execution of this
Agreement by all parties hereto, and shall have an initial term of ten(10)Years,with
two consecutive five(5)year renewal options,to be exercised at the City Manager's
sole option and discretion, by providing Consultant with written notice of same no
less than One Hundred and Twenty (120) days prior to the expiration of the initial
term.
•
•
September 30, 2015 City Commission Memo -
•
ITN 2014-170-SW Gated Revenue Control System for Municipal Garages
Page 3 of 11
Fees:
Consultant shall be paid its fee in connection with the Services being performed for
each garage during the following stages of performance:
• Phase I: 60% of the fee shall be due upon receipt of the equipment,
. installation of the equipment and software and written acceptance by the
City, in its sole, absolute, and reasonable discretion;of all the Services;
• Phase II: 20% within thirty (30) days from completion of Phase I, upon the
City's confirmation that any punch list items have been completed
satisfactorily and the Skidata System is operating as intended in the sole,
absolute, and reasonable discretion of the City;
• Phase Ill: 20%within ninety(90)days from the completion of Phase I, upon
the. City's acceptance, in its sole, absolute, and reasonable discretion, that
the Services have been completed satisfactorily and the Skidata System is
•
operating as intended; and
• The Maintenance costs for each garage shall be paid, commencing as of
Phase II of the installation of the Services for each garage, on a monthly
basis, based upon the agreed upon Maintenance Cost set forth herein.
Obsolescence - Performance Bond or Alternate Security.
As we know, the existing system provider has notified the City that it will no longer
be in the business of gated revenue control systems.. Since these systems are
proprietary, there is no ,option other than full system replacement. This raised
concerns with the City Commission as to how to address the issue of obsolescence.
To this end, a performance bond or alternate security provides an instrument by
which to address obsolescence. Skidata has indicated that it is willing to secure a
performance bond or alternate security, as prescribed below. Because it was not
identified as a requirement through the ITN process,the City cannot require Skidata
to absorb this cost. However, Skidata is willing to absorb 50% of the annual
expense, with the City paying the remainder in an amount not to exceed $12,500,
annually.
Walker Parking was posed the question below related to the issue of obsolescence
and the following is their opinion:
The useful life of most parking equipment is rated at eight to ten years
depending upon frequency of use, climate, and how well it's maintained. This
is similar for both meters and for gated PARCS; however, there are many
instances of parking equipment lasting far longer. Maintenance and repair
costs typically increase as the equipment ages.
Obsolescence is rare. For example, conventional parking meters have been
around for 80 years, and while they are extremely limited in their features
and functionality, Walker estimates that 4 million are still installed in the
September 30, 2015 City Commission Memo
ITN 2014-170-SW Gated Revenue Control System for Municipal Garages
Page 4of11 •
United States alone. Gated PARCS have been in existence for almost as
long, and although there is a lot of talk about gates "going away"due to cell
phone, apps and license plate recognition technology, only a handful of
garages have removed their gates to date. During the kick-off meeting
concerns were raised about the demise of Federal APD, once a leading
PARCS manufacturer. There was some concern about the industry overall.
Federal APD was in decline when 3M acquired them, and while Walker does
not know why or what happened internally, we view it as an anomaly rather
than a sign of things to come. PARCS has become big business, attracting
the likes of 3M, Xerox and other large corporations. While this creates
greater competition, it also shows that there is opportunity for growth
potential in the U.S. parking market. In Walker's estimation, Skidata and T2
are examples of two companies poised for growth.
Skidata has agreed to the aforementioned terms and conditions related to the
Performance Bond and the contract provision below is recommended.
Consultant shall, within thirty(30)days from execution of this Agreement, furnish to
• the City Manager or his designee a Performance Bond in the penal sums stated
below for the payment of which Consultant shall bind itself for the faithful
performance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement.A Performance Bond, in
• the amount of Three Million One Hundred Thousand ($3,100,000.00) Dollars
("Security"), shall be provided by the Consultant in faithful observance of this
Agreement for the first year of the Agreement. Thereafter, upon each renewal of the
Security, the total amount of the Security_shall be reduced by ten percent(10%)per
year, i.e. the amount of the Security for the second year of the Agreement shall be
no less than $2,790,000.00.
A cash deposit, irrevocable letter of credit, or certificate of deposit may also suffice
to comply with the requirement of providing Security, as determined by the City
Manager or his designee, in his sole and reasonable discretion. The.form of the
Performance Bond or alternate security shall be approved by the City's Chief
Financial Officer. In the event that a Certificate of Deposit is approved, it shall be for
the amounts of the Security required in this Section, in favor of the City, which shall
be automatically renewed for an amount no less than the required Security amount
set forth in this Section, the original of which shall be held by the City's Chief
Financial Officer. Consultant shall be so required to maintain said,Performance
Bond or alternate security in full force and effect throughout the Term of this
Agreement. Consultant shall have an affirmative duty to notify the City Manager or
his designee, in writing, in the event said Performance Bond or alternate security
lapses or otherwise expires. All interest that accrues in connection with any financial
instrument or sum of money referenced above shall be the property of Consultant,
except in an event of default, in which case the City shall be entitled to all interest
that accrues after the date of default.
September 30, 2015 City Commission Memo •
ITN 2014-170-SW Gated Revenue Control System for Municipal Garages
Page 5 of 11
•
Performance Standards:
This section defines requirements for minimum performance levels for Warranty and
Post Warranty Maintenance Agreement Period Performance. Written notifications
under this section may be provided in electronic form.
• A Warranty and Maintenance Agreement payments shall be made monthly to
the Contractor.
B Each month, within fifteen (15) days following the end of a month, the Firm
and City staff shall meet to review the System performance and Firm's
maintenance staff performance results for the prior month. Minutes of these
meetings shall become part of the permanent Contract file and shall be
•
available to the Performance Bond Insurance Company throughout the
maintenance period, if requested.
C The City shall review the System performance and the Firm's performance '
based on the standards outlined below for Preventative Maintenance(PM)and
Repair Services Maintenance (RS).
D The Firm shall submit monthly invoices that itemize the total invoice cost into
scheduled PM task effort(set amount each month) and RS response effort
(amount will vary based on actual effort performed each month)
E Preventative Maintenance Performance Requirements:
•
1. The Firm shall provide a detailed report of the maintenance items
performed in each visit to each location. This report shall be accepted
by the City supervisor at the end of each visit. The report shall
provide a means of tracking the preventative maintenance tasks
performed.
2. The Firm shall complete no less than ninety-eight percent (98%) of all
Preventative Maintenance scheduled during the month based on a
schedule previously provided by Firm. Percentages shall be calculated
on the total number of Preventative Maintenance tasks scheduled for
just that month and the total number of Preventative Maintenance tasks
fully completed in the month even if the scheduled maintenance is a
monthly, quarterly, or annual maintenance requirement. Partial
completion of a scheduled Preventative Maintenance item shall not
meet this requirement and shall not meet the City's standards of fully
completed. Any month that falls below this level shall require a written.
justification from the Firm and with measures implemented to assure
City staff that performance will improve. For each percentage point
below ninety-eight percent(98%)of total scheduled maintenance tasks
that the Contractor does not complete,the Contractor's monthly invoice
amount shall be reduced by five percent (5%). A percentage of ninety
1
September 30, 2015 City Commission Memo
ITN 2014-170-SW Gated Revenue Control System for Municipal Garages
Page 6of11
(90%) or below, without written justification accepted by the City, may
be considered reason for default of contract.
3. Factors beyond the control of the Firm, such as unexpected delays in
parts, delays due to accidents or damage created at no fault of the
Firm, severe weather and unusual traffic volume during the holiday
seasons shall be thoroughly documented in the Maintenance work
order system and reported to the City the next business day. The City
retains the right to determine if the non-performance was beyond the
Firm's control and is a valid reason for non-performance.
F Repair Service Maintenance and System Performance Requirements:
1. The Firm shall provide three methods of notification to be used for
repair contact information. The methods of notification shall provide a
means of tracking'the date and time the message was delivered.
Examples of some documented communication include online
customer portal, cell phone, and email. The time of arrival shall be
• documented by the technician's access to the garage by an access
card or QR/bar code. Completion time of the repair work shall have
written confirmation by a City supervisor.
2. The Firm shall respond in accordance with the two (2) hour response
times defined in this Invitation to Negotiate (ITN). Performance shall
be calculated as the number of response calls returned to the City
within the response time, divided by the total number of response calls
0
for the month. For each percentage point (below 98%) of total repair.
maintenance calls that the Contractor does not respond to within two
(2) hours, the Firm's monthly invoice shall be reduced by five percent
(5%) of the amount.
A percentage of ninety (90%) or below, without written justification
accepted by the City, may be considered reason for default of contract.
3. Any repair items that result.in a reduction in the level of service or
operation, including but not limited to, lane closures, inoperable
payment devices, etc. shall be considered critical repair items.
Resolution of any critical repair items within four (4) hours after
notification is required in all situations. A temporary solution is
acceptable in the event replacement parts are not available in
inventory. Penalties for non-compliance will be assessed according to
the following table, unless the City agrees that there were factors
• beyond the Firm's control that prevented them from completing the
work within the time specified:
•
September 30, 2015 City Commission Memo
ITN 2014-170-SW Gated Revenue Control System for Municipal Garages
Page 7 of 11 •
•
Completion Penalty per
time of repair repair
O to 4 hours N/A
4 to 6 hours $50.00
6 to 24 hours $100.00
24 to 36 hours $150.00
36 to 48 hours $200.00
48 to 72 hours $250.00
Any work exceeding 72 hours, without written justification accepted by
the City, may be considered reason for default of contract.
5. Factors beyond the control of the Firm, such as unexpected delays in
parts, accidents, severe weather, and unusual traffic, shall be
thoroughly documented in the Maintenance work order system and
reported to the City the next business day. The City may grant relief
for the service hour requirement after reviewing these factors. The
City shall cooperate with the Firm to fully explore any concerns
• regarding service and performance standards.
6. The City shall notify the Firm in writing of performance problems with •
respect to the service standards within twenty(20)days after the end
of each month based on the performance reports from the
maintenance tracking system.
7. The Firm shall be given thirty (30) days from receipt of notification to
take corrective actions with respect to the problem identified by the
City or request relief.
All other terms and conditions are substantively consistent with the City's customary
contract provisions.
Garage Revenue Control Analysis—Walker Parking Consultants -
On July 8, 2015, the City Commission held significant discussion regarding whether
to operate municipal parking garage with a "Gated" or "Metered/Enforcement"
revenue control system. To this end, the Mayor and Commission directed the
Administration to engage "Walker Parking" to perform an analysis. Walker was •
engaged and charged with the following tasks:
Review and opine on City Commission Memorandum — Parking Garage Revenue
Control Systems (dated June 10, 2015), including the following areas in memo:
a. Comment on most common garage revenue control systems and best
practices based on Walker's experience and project database.
b. Revenue control systems for parking garages deployed in public and
private systems within the last two years.
•
September 30, 2015 City Commission Memo
ITN 2014-170-SW Gated Revenue Control System for Municipal Garages
Page 8 of 11
c. Cost of Equipment—actual cost comparison of gated revenue control
systems like Skidata and Amano versus pay stations like T2, analyzed
over a ten-year period, including service contracts.
d. Cost of Labor—operational cost comparison of labor associated with
gated revenue control systems like Skidata and Amano versus pay
stations like T2.
e. Technological advancements—What is the trend of equipment being
installed in new construction municipal/university garages? Will the
equipment the City is contemplating purchasing from Skidata be
• obsolete five years from now? Will the trending increase in pay-by-
phone users diminish the need and utility of the equipment the City is
contemplating purchasing from Skidata?
f. Comparison & Capture Rate — compare both technologies during
large special events and major impact periods. What is the capture
rate of T2 pay stations? Users of the app?
g. Cost of Enforcement — additional labor cost of adding garages to
parking enforcement officers' routes? Additional revenue to City
above and beyond average parking fee resulting from parking
citations being issued?Also, most pay station users pay for more time
than they actually use, adding to the bottom line. Additional revenue
to City above and beyond average parking fee with gated revenue
control systems versus T2 pay station where users over-pay for
parking?
h. Adjustment of Parking Rates—Which system provides more flexibility
based on what level of the garage you park in?Which system allows
for readily distinguishing between residents and non-residents
allowing for different price structures for each?
i. Pre-paid Parking Reservations—which system is more effective?
j. Revenue and Expense Impacts of Metered vs. proposed PARCS
replacement or other alternative system. .
k. Calculate, project and compare the total purchase, installation,
• service and repair costs of the Skidata equipment being considered
by the City versus the T2 pay stations over a 10 year period, including
service contracts.
I. Using salary data provided by the City, project and compare the labor
savings(excluding parking enforcement)associated with installing the
Skidata equipment being considered by the City versus installing T2
•
pay stations.
September 30, 2015 City Commission Memo
ITN 2014-170-SW Gated Revenue Control System for Municipal Garages
Page 9of11
m. Recommend the number of parking enforcement officers required to
patrol the 10 garages if the City installs T2 pay stations, and using
• salary data provided by the City, estimate the associated costs.
n. Using on-street data provided by the City, extrapolate the projected
citation revenue for the 10 garages generated from non-payment
and/or overtime parking if T2 pay stations are installed.
o. . Opine on installing license plate recognition technology at the garage
entrances and integrating with the T2 pay stations to improve
enforcement. Is a 100% capture rate possible?
p. Opine on increased pay-by-phone and similar pay-in-advance
technologies and if they potentially undermine the justification of using
gated revenue control systems.
q. Using on-street data provided by the City, extrapolate the projected
citation revenue for violations other than non-payment or overtime
parking if T2 pay stations are installed in the 10 garages (i.e.
handicap violations, expired tags, etc.).
r. Opine on the potential useful life of the Skidata equipment being
considered by the City. Is obsolescence a relevant issue in
comparing Skidata and T2 systems?
s. Based on anecdotal evidence gleaned from our expertise, and
experience, project the revenue potential generated by the over-
payment of parking if the City installs T2 pay stations in the 10
garages.
t. Opine on which of the two systems is better equipped to distinguish
between residents and non-residents in setting different rate
structures. •
u. Recommendation
Walker Parking completed the analysis and it is attached for you review. For ease of
reference, Section U, entitled, "Recommendation" is below.
U. Recommendation:
Walker recommends a gated PARCS in the ten garages for the following reasons:
1. While the metered system is less expensive to procure, install and maintain,
the labor required to effectively enforce the garages make the T2 metered
system more expensive to operate by$3.5 million over ten years. If the City
desires a metered setting, Walker recommends contracting with the City's
operator to provide enforcement(and maintenance) services, as the payroll
costs would be significantly lower.
September 30, 2015 City Commission Memo
ITN 2014-170-SW Gated Revenue Control System for Municipal Garages
Page 10 of 11
•
2. Metered revenue projections are $500,000 less than a gated PARCS over
ten years. This is due to the City netting just 33% of enforcement revenue
and no way of verifying ADA driver's licenses.
3. Metered systems do not provide facility count systems. Some of the garages
fill up on a regular basis 'in season', requiring staff to monitor garage
occupancy, and close the garage to transient parkers, in order to'hold'some
parking for monthly parkers. Gates are also required to control(close or open
entry and exit lanes). If the City desires a metered system, Walker
recommends procuring a gated count system, which would add significant
cost to the project. We typically recommend maintaining existing count •
systems and gates; however, the existing PARCS is no longer being
manufactured and support is being phased out. Note that mobile LPR
provides car counts as enforcement is conducted; however, the counts will
only be conducted on an hourly basis, compared to a count system that
counts vehicles as they enter and exit the facility (in real time).
4. The gated PARCS provides a higher level of customer service than a
metered system:
• As the City knows from implementing pay-by-plate on-street, there is
a learning curve with motorists needing to enter their license plates at
the meters. In a garage setting, motorists who neglect to note their
license plate number will need to return to their car, which could be
farther away than in an on-street setting. If the City desires a metered
setting, Walker recommends installing significant signage on all floors
and elevators, advising people to note their license plates for the
•
meter payment. Suggest that motorists take photos of their license
plates, or write their plate numbers down. Walker also recommends
promoting pay-by-cell as a payment tool,thereby eliminating the need
to enter the license plate at the meter.
• Motorists won't want to worry about receiving a citation if their plans
change and/or they are delayed, and they will resent needing to
overpay the meter to avoid this. They also won't enjoy overpaying for
parking if they decide to leave earlier than they planned. If the City
selects a metered setting,Walker recommends promoting pay-by-cell
services,thereby enabling motorists to add time remotely(Parkmobile
will text motorists when their time is about to expire). Walker further
recommends offering pay-by-cell customers the option of `stopping'
their parking session when they return to their car. This will prevent
overpayments, thereby reducing revenue; however, it will be very well
received by the public and will help the City win acceptance for
metered garages. Walker projected $480,000 in annual overpayment
• revenue. Walker estimates that fewer than half of the patrons will
•
September 30, 2015 City Commission Memo
ITN 2014-170-SW Gated Revenue Control System for Municipal Garages
Page 11of11
utilize pay-by-cell services(the City's current usage is 20%);;therefore
the potential annual cost in revenue is estimated at $240,000.
• Metered systems do not have intercoms for customer assistance. If
the City selects a metered setting, Walker recommends installing
intercoms in all of the garages. This could be done for less than
$100,000.
• Meters will not provide change; however, eliminating cash
transactions is a best practice, as credit card transactions are typically
faster than cash transactions, and reducing cash is more efficient for
collections and improves audit.control. If the City selects the gated
PARCS,Walker recommends committing fully to"pay-on-foot.Walker
understands that the City's staffing recommendations significantly
reduces the number of cashiers by expanding POFs and
implementing 'centralized remote monitoring (via intercoms and
audio/video) for customer interactions. Walker recommends
eliminating all cashiers, as the ultimate goals of a POF system are to
fully automate transactions and to remove as many transactions from
the exit lanes as possible. When any cashiers.are present, some
motorists will ignore the POFs and utilize the cashiers. We
understand that a human presence will still be required and desired;
however, an attendant who is free to walk around and assist
customers at the POFs and/or the exit lanes can be more effective
than a cashier sitting in a cashier booth; This may also result in further
reductions in labor costs, as well as increased audit control and
operational efficiencies(no fee computers, cashier reports or cashier
drawers).
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends the Mayor and Commission approve and authorize
the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an Agreement, substantially in the form
• attached to this Resolution, between the City and Skidata, Inc., pursuant to
Invitation to Negotiate(ITN)2014-170-SW,for a Gated Revenue Control System for
the city's parking garages, for an initial term of ten (10) years, with two (2) five (5)
year options, at the city's sole discretion. .
JLM/K'•:/SF
T:\AG NDA\20151September\Parking\ITN 2014-170 Revenue ControlAgreement.mem.doc
•
EXHIBIT 1
CITY COMMISSION
AGENDA ITEM
NO . R7N
JULY 8, 2015
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH FLORIDA,
ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER PURSUANT TO INVITATION TO NEGOTIATE
(ITN)2014-170-SW FOR A GATED REVENUE CONTROL SYSTEM FOR THE CITY'S PARKING GARAGES.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Ensure expenditure trends are sustainable over the long term.
Supporting Data(Surveys, Environmental Scan,etc: N/A
Item Summary/Recommendation:
The City's Parking Department is seeking a state of the art gated parking revenue control system, including
centralized processing of data for all of the City's parking garages,a central monitoring station for:intercoms,CCTV at
all entrance and exit lanes,and access control for all garage equipment.This will allow for operational savings as well
as enhanced audit controls. In order to achieve this service level, all garages must have compatible hardware,
software,firmware,and equipment, meaning that one system (vendor)must equip and service all garages.
The City's municipal parking garages are currently operated with on-site cashiers/parking attendants and a gated
revenue control system,provided by 3M(manufacturer). The equipment runs along several model lines ranging from
several years to over a decade old. Additionally, 3M notified its customers, including the City, of its intent to
discontinue its gated parking revenue control subdivision and related equipment and services.
At the September 10,2014 City Commission meeting,the Mayor and City Commission adopted Resolution No.2014-
28720 accepting the recommendation of the City Manager pertaining to the ranking of proposers pursuant to Invitation
To Negotiate (ITN) 2014-170-SW for a Parking Garage Gated Revenue Control System. Further, the Resolution
authorized the Administration to enter into negotiations with all the proposers.The Administration was requested to
present the final contract for the Commission's review prior to entering into an agreement with the parking equipment
companies.The details of the contract negotiation phase and comparative analysis of final replies is attached.
The City Manager, after carefully considering the results of the negotiation process and staff recommendation,
recommends that the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach,Florida,accept the recommendation of
the City Manager,pursuant to Invitation To Negotiate(ITN)2014-170-SW for a gated revenue control system for the
City's parking garages;approving the material terms of an agreement between the City and Skidata,Inc.,as set forth
in the term sheet attached as Exhibit"A"hereto;authorizing the City Manager and the City Attorney's Office to finalize
the Agreement based upon the material terms approved herein;provided that they may make any non-substantive and
non-material revisions and/or additions to the Agreement,as they deem necessary;authorizing the Mayor and City
Clerk to execute the final Agreement;and,in the event that the City is unable to finalize successful negotiations with
Skidata, Inc., authorizing the City Manager and the City Attorney's Office to negotiate an Agreement with Amano
McGann, Inc.based upon the material terms approved in Exhibit"A"herein(provided that they may make any non-
substantive and non-material revisions and/or additions to the Agreement).
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Resolution.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
Financial Information:
Source of Amount Account
Funds: 1 $ 303,000 142-6176-000674
2 362,000 463-6176-000674
3 471,000 467-6176-000674
4 2,696,000 480-6176-000674
0 5 400,000 480-0463-000349
OBPI Total $4,232,000 _
Financial Impact Summary:
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
Alex Denis, Extension 6641
Sign-Offs:
,partment ''•actor -tant Ci t anager City M nager
AD '� SF IP M' a L'IKGBAJ JL Vik
T:IAGEN• 015Uune1PR000REMENTUTN 2014-110-S -a i ng Garage Gated Revenue Control System for the City of Miami Beach• MARY.doc
Agenda Rem R-A/_
MIAMIBEACH Date N 769
MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive,Miami Beach,Florida 33139,www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Philip Levine and Members f the City C mission
FROM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
DATE: June 10, 2015
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
CITY MANAGER, PURSUANT TO INVITATION TO NEGOTIATE (ITN) 2014-
170-SW FOR A GATED REVENUE CONTROL SYSTEM FOR THE CITY'S
PARKING GARAGES; APPROVING THE MATERIAL TERMS OF AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND SKIDATA, INC., AS SET FORTH IN
THE TERM SHEET ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT "A" HERETO; AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO FINALIZE
THE AGREEMENT BASED UPON THE MATERIAL TERMS APPROVED
HEREIN; PROVIDED THAT THEY MAY MAKE ANY NON-SUBSTANTIVE AND
NON-MATERIAL REVISIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS TO THE AGREEMENT,
AS THEY DEEM NECESSARY; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY
CLERK TO EXECUTE THE FINAL AGREEMENT; AND, IN THE EVENT THAT
THE CITY IS UNABLE TO FINALIZE SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATIONS WITH
SKIDATA, INC., AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT WITH AMANO
MCGANN, -INC. BASED UPON THE MATERIAL TERMS APPROVED IN
EXHIBIT "A" HEREIN (PROVIDED THAT THEY MAY MAKE ANY NON-
SUBSTANTIVE AND NON-MATERIAL REVISIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS TO
THE AGREEMENT).
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution.
KEY INTENDED OUTCOME SUPPORTED
Ensure expenditure trends are sustainable over the long term.
FUNDING
Funding for the one-time capital cost is available as follows:
Amount Account
1 $ 303,000 142-6176-000674
2 362,000 463-6176-000674
3 471,000 467-6176-000674
4 2,696,000 480-6176-000674
5 400,000 480-0463-000349
Total $4,232,000
Funding for the annual maintenance costs will be subject to appropriation in the annual budget
process.
770
City Commission Memorandum-Parking Garage Gated Revenue Control System
June 10,2015
Page 2 of 15
BACKGROUND
The City's Parking System currently has ten (10) municipal parking garages, totaling 6,106
parking spaces. An 11th facility, Collins Avenue Garage is funded and currently in design with
an estimated 470 parking spaces, for a grand total of 6,576 parking spaces. The City's Parking
Department is seeking a state of the art gated parking revenue control system, including
centralized processing of data for all of the City's parking garages, a central monitoring station
for: intercoms, CCTV at all entrance and exit lanes, and access control for all garage
equipment. This would allow for operational savings as well as enhanced audit controls. In
order to achieve this service level, all garages must have compatible hardware, software,
firmware, and equipment, meaning that one system (vendor) must equip and service all
garages.
The City's municipal parking garages are currently operated with on-site cashiers/parking
attendants and a gated revenue control system, provided by 3M (manufacturer). The
equipment runs along several model lines ranging from several years to over a decade old.
Additionally, 3M notified its customers, including the City, of its intent to discontinue its gated
parking revenue control subdivision and related equipment and services.
On May 21, 2014, the Mayor and City Commission approved the issuance of Invitation to
Negotiate (ITN) No. 2014-170 for a Parking Garage Gated Revenue Control System. In
response to the ITN, the City received proposals from the following five(5)firms:
• Amano McGann, Inc.
• Consolidated Parking Equipment
• Scheidt& Bachmann USA, Inc.
• Skidata Inc.
• WPS USA Corp.
At the September 10, 2014 City Commission meeting, the Mayor and City Commission adopted
Resolution No. 2014-28720 accepting the recommendation of the City Manager pertaining to
the ranking of proposers pursuant to Invitation To Negotiate (ITN) 2014-170-SW for a Parking
Garage Gated Revenue Control System. Further, the Resolution authorized the Administration
to enter into negotiations with all the proposers. The Administration was requested to present
the final contract for the Commission's review prior to entering into an agreement with the
parking equipment companies.
CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
On December 10, 2014, the Parking and Procurement Departments convened negotiation
session No. 1 with all proposers and attended the meeting with Skidata, Inc., Amano MCGann,
Inc., LCN, Inc. D/B/A Consolidated Parking Equipment, WPS USA Corp., and Scheidt &
Bachmann USA, Inc. The intent of negotiation session No. 1 was to: 1) provide an overview of
the ITN negotiation process and clarify any questions proposers may have; 2) discuss and
review with proposers the Term Sheet and Cost Proposal Sheets which would form the basis of
negotiation discussions; and, 3) schedule site visits will all proposers for December 22 and 23,
2014, to evaluate equipment and inspect all parking garages.
On December 17, 2014, the City was notified by Consolidated Parking Equipment that it had
withdrawn its proposal pursuant to the ITN because it had been informed by 3M, the
manufacturer of the equipment proposed, that 3M would no longer be producing the proposed
equipment. Following this notification from Consolidated, the City ceased further negotiations
with Consolidated.
771
ATTACHMENT 3
City Commission Memorandum-Parking Garage Gated Revenue Control System
June 10,2015
Page 3 of 15
On December 22, and December 23, 2014, site visits were held and attended by the remaining
four (4) Proposers: Amano McGann, Inc., Scheidt & Bachmann USA, Inc., Skidata, Inc., and
WPS USA Corp. Proposers were given until December 30, 2014, to submit their questions
relating to the cost proposal. As a result of questions arising from evaluating the equipment, the
Procurement Department issued Response 1, 2, and 3, on January 15, January 28, and
January 30, 2015, respectively. On January 30, the City requested cost proposals, for which a
due date of February 6, 2015, was established.
On February 6, 2015, cost proposals from Amano McGann, Inc., Skidata, Inc., and WPS USA
Corp. were received. At this time, Scheidt & Bachmann USA, Inc., notified the City that, due to
schedule conflicts, it had withdrawn its proposal pursuant to the ITN. The following is a brief
summary, from the information provided in each firm' proposals, of the final three(3)proposers:
• • Amano McGann, Inc. is headquartered in Roseville, Minnesota, with approximately 290
employees across the United States. With over 290 employees, 20 branch offices and
over 40 distribution partners throughout the U.S., according to Amano McGann, it has
performed over 6,000 installations worldwide along with its parent company Amano
Corporation. Amano provides parking, time and access solutions to universities, hotel
chains, airports, sports complex and municipalities. Recent clients include the City of
West Palm Beach, City of Portland Smart Park Garages, and the City of Detroit.
• SKIDATA, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of SKIDATA, AG(founded in Austria in 1977),
was established in North America in January 2000 to serve the off-street parking and
revenue control system market segment. According to SKIDATA, it has built over 750
systems in Canada, USA and Mexico. Their products and services are found in airports, •
municipalities, shopping centers, universities and medical centers across North America.
Recent clients include the City of Oklahoma City, City of Beverly Hills, City of St. Louis
and Downtown Salt Lake City. Their services include consulting, integration, direct
support, documentation and training.
• WPS USA Corp. has over twenty(20) years of experience using bar code technology in
their parking access systems. According to WPS, it introduced the first "Credit Car
In/Credit Card Out" solution back in the early 1990's. Recent clients have been the City
of Norfolk, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation, Rockville Town Square and
the Union Station Parking Garage in Washington, D.C.
Several negotiation sessions with all three (3) proposers were scheduled, as well as a request
for best and final cost proposals offers. The Administration received final replies to the
referenced negotiations on May 19, 2015.
ANALYSIS
Parking gated revenue control system is necessary for the operation of the City's parking
facility, as well as the management of over $16 million in annual revenue at these facilities. A
system with robust functionality and reporting/audit capabilities, as well as a partnership with a
qualified service provider is critical for the effective management of a system that serves over
3.3M customers annually and through which significant revenue is yielded. For these reasons,
the Administration believes that, in the best interest of the City, functionality, prior performance
record and cost of the system are critically important considerations. With that in mind, a
comparative analysis follows with the purpose of illustrating major differences among the three
finalist with whom the City has negotiated.
772
City Commission Memorandum-Parking Garage Gated Revenue Control System
June 10, 2015
Page 4 of 15
1. System Functionality. The three (3) proposed systems offer basic access and revenue
control functionality. The major differences among the three (3) firms are in the areas of
ticket technology(barcode,vs. magnetic stripe), and validation of disabled permits.
a. Ticket Technology. The major difference in the area of functionality is the
technology utilized for ticket transactions (vs card access), which is typically
either a barcode ticket or magnetic stripe ticket. Historically, each type has been
lauded by the industry as the preferred methodology over years. Currently,
barcode tickets are the most widely accepted and enjoys a substantial portion of
the market share. While all indications seem to point towards continued use and
growth of barcode tickets, there is no clear indication of either taking the full
market share. The following are the options available for each of the three (3)
proposers in the barcode vs. magnetic stripe technologies:
• Amano McGann, Inc. offers both barcode and magnetic stripe ticket systems;
however, both systems cannot be deployed simultaneously in each garage.
• Skidata offers both barcode and magnetic stripe ticket systems which may be
deployed simultaneously.
• WPS offers bar code system only.
While staff believes that either barcode or magnetic stripe methodologies are
acceptable, it is important to note that once a decision on bar code or magnetic
stripe is made, future changes in technology will require major system upgrades.
b. EMV (Europay Mastercard & Visa) — Chip embedded credit card technology,
which provides users added protection against fraud, is quickly approaching, if
not already here.
• Both Skidata and Amano have solutions for EMV and committed to providing
their solution at no additional cost to the City. WPS has advised the City that
they are developing an EMV solution; however, its availability and cost is
contingent upon various factors. The following is an excerpt from an email
sent by Mr. Garrett Coleman, Manufacturer's Representative, on March 17,
2015.
"Please understand that there are a number of requirements that companies
like WPS are not responsible for completing. These need to be resolved by
the credit card industry. Until these are resolved, it is not possible to state for
sure there will not be any added costs when the regulations are released and
enforced."
c. Validation of Disabled Permits. The process to confirm legitimate disabled
parking transactions, typically processed as exception validations, requires
human interaction. Disabled parking permits are issued and directly linked to an
individual. A disabled parking permit with matching user information on a
government issued identification, such as a driver's license or state identification
card must be presented to an attendant (at a remote location) for confirmation.
Once confirmed, a validation may be processed for a parking fee waiver (the
exception), as required by Code. The following are the exception validation
solution provided by each proposer:
773
City Commission Memorandum-Parking Garage Gated Revenue Control System
June 10,2015
Page 5 of 15
• Amano's solution provides individual components; however, the solution is
not currently integrated resulting in a very labor intensive process to audit and
reconcile validations. Amano offered to further develop their solution, if
requested to do so at no additional cost to the City.
• Skidata provides an automated audit feature to specifically confirm, track, and
retrieve at any point in the future, all validations through a single source, the
transient ticket transaction number. The following is a brief description of the
Skidata automated solution for validations(exceptions).
A customer provides their credentials (disabled parking permit and
identification) for viewing by an attendant at a remote centralized monitoring
location. The attendant can view the credentials and an image of the
credentials is stored as an attachment (electronic file) to the specific
transaction number for that customer. At a later date, any or all validations,
including disabled parking validations, may be easily retrieved by referencing
a single source (ticket transaction number) for auditing purposes. The images
of the disabled parking permit and identification are easily retrieved, viewed,
and confirmed.
• WPS proffered to develop (and preliminarily tested) a similar functionality
through their license plate recognition (LPR) system. However, their
proposed solution is in the developmental stage.
In FY 2013/14, there were a total of 26,968 disabled parking permit exception
validation transactions, at all ten municipal parking garages, with a value of
$254,766. Without an effective exception validation system, the validation
process for these transactions is vulnerable to manipulation/fraud. The Skidata
solution closes this loophole with a proven, efficient, and user-friendly auditable
feature for validated exception transactions. Amano and WPS proposed to
enhance their current functionality; however, the proposed solutions are, to date,
either unbuilt or untested.
It is important to note gated revenue control systems may also be used in
municipal parking lots with high demand providing greater audit controls and
preserving the integrity of disabled parking.
2. References.The City contacted references provided by each proposer and conducted a
survey/questionnaire. All references for Skidata were deemed satisfactory; however,
there were issues brought to the City's attention with regard to the past performance of
Amano and WPS. The following are excerpts from responses received to the
survey/questionnaire:
Amano Reference—City of West Palm Beach:
• System does not work off-line. Monthly access cards do not work off-line due to
different facility codes at garages. Previous equipment from Federal APD would
batch credit card. This equipment does not batch. Unable to process credit card
transactions when there is a power outage, as evidenced in a recent lightning
strike.
774
City Commission Memorandum-Parking Garage Gated Revenue Control System
June 10, 2015
Page 6 of 15
• Credit card jams on insertion. Recommends swipe.
• No capability to send information to spitter or exit gates. Example: when a ticket
jams and the machine is turned off, the device does not reset itself and requires
on-site reprogramming (cannot be reprogrammed remotely from central station).
• Intercoms go on and off-line. Currently, four are off-line (system is only two
years old). Amano is quick to respond but intercoms are still down.
WPS Reference—City of Norfolk
Q. Are you satisfied with the audit/accounting capabilities of the software? Please
explain system capabilities.
A. Not satisfied. Cash does not match shift report. Cash received via Pay-In-Lane
(PIL)devices are not tallying correctly.
• PIL cash refunds are inaccurate due to issuance of same amount of change due
to customer in both bills and coins resulting in a duplicate refund.
• WPS was not aware of this issue until advised by Reference.
• Reference has been thorough in providing WPS documentation regarding these
malfunctions.
• This is particularly of concern in remote centralized motoring, since there is no
cashier present to witness this occurrence. Reference personally witnessed this
malfunction.
• This was discovered at their third busiest garage.
• Reference attempted unsuccessfully to have WPS provide replacement
equipment; consulted with their legal department; and was advised to allow WPS
to address the issue.
• New software update is required. Update was scheduled last year. There have
been issues resulting in delays. Update is now scheduled for Spring/Summer
2015.
• Reference stated that it is prepared to pursue legal action.
3. COST PROPOSALS. The final cost proposals are itemized into three major areas: (1)
cost of installed equipment; (2) rebate and removal of existing equipment; and (3) ten
(10)year maintenance/support.
Amano Skidata WPS
Equipment and Installation $3,418,950.00 $3,667,412.00 $2,769,205.00
Rebate on Existing Equipment $(273,100.00) $(32,500.00) $11,470.00
Maintenance and Support(10 Year) $3,823,237.52 $3,158,266.60 $2,478,461.00
Total 10 Year Costs $6,969,087.52* $6,793,178.60 $5,259,136.00*
*These figures represent the final costs negotiated with and confirmed by each Proposer. As
noted in Exhibit C, the City and the Proposers engaged in several rounds of cost negotiations to
assure best pricing, address certain errors and omissions in Proposer's cost proposals and
create a functional system baseline so that all proposals could be compared equitably. For
example, Amano's original cost proposals inadvertently omitted the required dedicated
employees (at a cost of$821,197.52 over the ten year term) and Skidata's omitted the required
training (at a cost of $12,000.00 as an initial cost). Additionally, all proposers offered extra
goods and services (above and beyond what is required for a fully functional system)that could
enhance system operation and is available to the City for future consideration.
775
City Commission Memorandum-Parking Garage Gated Revenue Control System
June 10,2015
Page 7 of 15
CITY MANAGER'S DUE DILIGENCE
The City's ten parking garages are currently operated with on-site cashiers/parking attendants
and a gated revenue control system, provided by 3M (manufacturer). Collectively, all garages
generate over$16M in revenues with a labor expense for cashiers/attendants of$3M, annually.
As you know, a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Parking Attendants was issued and an award
is anticipated by the July 2015 City Commission meeting. A critical component required to
manage and operate our municipal garages is a state-of-the-art revenue control system with
remote monitoring. Remote monitoring will automate cashier operations at all parking garages
reducing cashier labor expenses from $3M to $1.8M, a savings of $1.2M (40%), annually.
Therefore, a robust and reliable gated revenue control system is essential to process, collect,
and audit transactions and their related revenues. While the City has considered a metered
operations approach (see Exhibit B) to a gated system, the Administration has concluded that
such approach is not cost effective.
Skidata's PARCS solution is composed of gated entrance and exit control systems with the
ability to accept credit card payment in-lane and access credentials such as access cards, pay
by mobile phone applications, or validations; automated pay stations with the ability of accepting
credit card and cash payments; garage offices and central monitoring work stations composed
of desktop computers, monitors and audio/video (intercoms); and software system that
integrates with all revenue control devices at all garages and interfaces with the City's permit
and financial management systems. More importantly, the system allows for Remote Monitoring
reducing the need for cashier (labor) functions. This is anticipated to reduce parking
attendant/cashier labor cost by 40%. In addition, remote monitoring allows for a variety of
technology enhancements, including real time utilization, ability to change rates based on
utilization, grant gate access, diagnose, troubleshoot, and potentially resolve a variety of alarms
related to in-lane or peripheral equipment.
The City Manager, after carefully considering the results of the negotiation process and staff
recommendations, recommends that the Mayor and City Commission authorize the
Administration to finalize negotiations on final contract terms with Skidata, Inc.; and, upon
successful conclusion of the negotiation terms by the Administration, authorize the Mayor and
City Clerk to execute an Agreement for a gated revenue control system for the City's parking
garages with Skidata. In support of this recommendation, the City Manager finds as follows:
Functionality
While Amano, Skidata, and WPS are very competitively matched in terms of general system
functionality, the review and analysis conducted by staff indicate some significant differences in
a few areas. Of greatest concern is the need to efficiently and effectively process transactions
through remote monitoring while maintaining a user-friendly and reliable auditable trail, of
validated transactions, most notable are disabled parking permit exemptions with an annual
value exceeding $250,000.
•
776
City Commission Memorandum-Parking Garage Gated Revenue Control System
June 10,2015
Page 8 of 15
References
Section 2-369 of the City Code requires that, in the award of contracts, the following be
considered:
(1) The ability, capacity and skill of the bidder to perform the contract.
(2) Whether the bidder can perform the contract within the time specified, without delay or
interference.
(3) The character, integrity, reputation,judgment, experience and efficiency of the bidder.
(4) The quality of performance of previous contracts.
(5) The previous and existing compliance by the bidder with laws and ordinances relating to
•
the contract.
Skidata client references indicate that it has a satisfactory history of past performance. Past
clients of both Amano and WPS expressed some concerns of each firm's respective systems
and response to system issues. Especially concerning is the experience shared by a past client
of WPS in which it stated that the system was unable to accurately record and reconcile cash
balances. This is a very dangerous scenario when one considers the amount of revenue ($16M
annually)flowing through the City's gated revenue control system.
Cost
While system costs for all proposed systems are significant, the current estimated annual
revenue yielded through the parking operations at which the reference equipment will be utilized
• is approximately$16M. The following tables indicate costs as a percentage of revenue over the
contract term for the new proposed systems, both in terms of overall project cost as well as
yearly maintenance costs.
Equipment&Installation Amano Skidata WPS
Equipment and Installation $3,418,950.00 $3,667,412.00 $2,769,205.00
Rebate for Existing Equipment and/or
Cost of Removing Existing Equipment ($273,100.00) ($32,500.00) $11,470.00
Total Initial Costs $3,145,850.00 $3,634,912.00 $2,780,675.00
Recurring Annual Maintenance Amano Skidata WPS
Total Maintenance Costs Over 10
Years $3,823,237.52 $3,158,266.60 $2,478,461.00
Estimated Revenue(10 Years) $160,000,000.00 $160,000,000.00 $160,000,000.00
Maintenance Only Cost as a
Percentage of Revenue 2.39% 1.97% 1.55%
While cost is clearly an important consideration, the gated parking revenue control system is a
major system for the City through which nearly $16M is processed each year. System
functionality and prior performance of the contractor is as critical as is the cost of the system.
Remote Monitoring Savings and Resulting Net Cost
The following is a comparison of current staffing cost versus proposed (reduced) staffing levels;
new equipment/remote monitoring, including maintenance costs, over a ten year period.
777
•
City Commission Memorandum-Parking Garage Gated Revenue Control System
June 10, 2015
Page 9 of 15
The proposed reduction in attendant labor hours may be achieved as follows:
• Elimination of the second and third Parking Attendant I (cashier), if applicable, from all
locations, Monday through Friday, dayshifts; and
• Elimination of all Parking Attendant I during off-peak(overnight) hours.
• Reduction of Parking Attendant II during off-peak hours.
Remote monitoring is anticipated to reduce cashier labor hours by 40%. This is attributed to a
centralized remote monitoring consolidating cashier functions and tasks at one centralized
location. Each workstation is equipped with data access control to process parking
transactions; intercoms and video monitors for audio/video interactions with the customers;
and will interface with the security camera system to be deployed in all garages under a
separate formal competitive procurement process for security system. Additionally, annual
maintenance costs over the next ten (10)years are less than current annual maintenance costs.
YEAR 1 CURRENT PROPOSED DIFFERENCE
Staffing $2,943,000' $1,800,000' $(1,143,000)
Equipment Cost $3,635,000 $3,635,000
Equipment Maintenance $225,000' $132,000 $(93,000)
TOTAL $3,168,000 $5,567,000 $2,399,000
YEAR 2
Staffing $2,943,000' $1,800,000' $(1,143,000)
Equipment Maintenance $225,000' $173,000 $(52,000)
TOTAL $3,168,000 $1,973,000 $(1,195,000)
YEAR 3
Staffing $2,943,000' $1,800,000' $(1,143,000)
Equipment Maintenance $225,000' $331,000 $106,000
TOTAL $3,168,000 $2,131,000 $(1,037,000)
YEAR 4
Staffing $2,943,000' $1,800,000' $(1,143,000)
Equipment Maintenance $225,000' $342,000 $117,000
TOTAL $3,168,000 $2,142,000 $(1,026,000)
YEAR 5
Staffing $2,943,000' $1,800,000' $(1,143,000)
Equipment Maintenance $225,000' $353,000 $128,000
TOTAL $3,168,000 $2,153,000 $(1,015,000) ,
YEAR 6
Staffing $2,943,000' $1,800,000' $(1,143,000)
Equipment Maintenance $225,000' $364,000 $139,000
TOTAL $3,168,000 $2,164,000 $(1,004,000)
YEAR 7
Staffing $2,943,000' $1,800,000' $(1,143,000)
Equipment Maintenance $225,000' $376,000 $151,000
TOTAL $3,168,000 $2,176,000 $(992,000)
YEAR 8
Staffing $2,943,000' $1,800,000' $(1,143,000)
Equipment Maintenance $225,000' $388,000 $163,000
TOTAL $3,168,000 $2,188,000 $(980,000)
YEAR 9
778
City Commission Memorandum—Parking Garage Gated Revenue Control System
June 10, 2015
Page 10 of 15
Staffing $2,943,000` $1,800,000` $(1,143,000)
Equipment Maintenance $225,000` $400,000 $175,000
TOTAL $3,168,000 $2,200,000 $(968,000)
YEAR 10
Staffing $2,943,000` $1,800,000` $(1,143,000)
Equipment Maintenance $225,000` $413,000 $188,000
TOTAL $3,168,000 $2,213,000 $(955,000)
TOTAL 10 YRS $31,680,000 $24,907,000 $(6,773,000)
`Assumes No Increase
The proposed solution results in an estimated total cost savings of$6,773,000, over a ten year
period.
Therefore, based on a combination of factors that includes equipment and comparable
installations, past performance on previous public sector contracts and cost savings (especially
when compared to the current system), the City Manager recommends that the Mayor and City
Commission authorize the Administration to finalize negotiations on final contract terms with
Skidata, Inc.
The City Manager further recommends that in the event that the City is unable to finalize
successful negotiations with Skidata, Inc., to finalize negotiations on final contract terms with
Amano McGann, Inc.
As a side note, the City Manager notes that during phase 1 evaluation of proposals, Skidata
was recommended as the first-ranked Proposer by every Evaluation Committee member.
Amano McGann followed Skidata with one second-place rank, one third-place rank and one
fourth-place rank as scored by the Evaluation Committee.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami
Beach, Florida, accept the recommendation of the City Manager, pursuant to Invitation To
Negotiate (ITN) 2014-170-SW for a gated revenue control system for the City's parking garages;
approving the material terms of an agreement between the City and Skidata, Inc., as set forth in
the term sheet attached as Exhibit "A" hereto; authorizing the City Manager and the City
Attorney's Office to finalize the Agreement based upon the material terms approved herein;
provided that they may make any non-substantive and non-material revisions and/or additions
to the Agreement, as they deem necessary; authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the
final Agreement; and, in the event that the City is unable to finalize successful negotiations with
Skidata, Inc., authorizing the City Manager and the City Attorney's Office to negotiate an
Agreement with Amano McGann, Inc. based upon the material terms approved in Exhibit "A"
herein (provided that they may make any non-substantive and non-material revisions and/or
addition to the Agreement).
JLM/ ri-/MT/SF/AD
T:IAGENDA12015 1June1PROCUREMENTUTN 2014-170-SW Parking Garage Gated Revenue Control System for the City of Miami
Beach MEMO(20150526 KGB).doc
779
TERM SHEET(EXHIBIT A)
BRIEF SCOPE OF WORK AMANO SKIDATA I WPS
Removal/buy back of existing equipment, new equipment at all
garages, installation, hardware/software, 10 years
maintenance/support.
PROPOSED EQUIPMENT AMANO SKIDATA WPS
Submitted Submitted Submitted
Electronically _ Electronically Electronically
NEW EQUIPMENT COST-
INSTALLED AMANO SKIDATA WPS
Equipment 2,885,500.00 2,830,004.00 2,332,315.00
Installation - 143,750.00 76,630.00
Software Installation 227,975.00 331,579.00 29,800.00
Other 305,475.00 362,079.00 330,460.00
TOTAL $3,418,950.00 $3,667,412.00 $2,769,205.00
Skidata is $248,462(7%)higher than Amano and $898,207(32%)higher than WPS.
REBATE/BUYBACK OF EXISTING EQUIPMENT
EXISTING EQUIPMENT AMANO SKIDATA WPS
Rebate/Buy back for existing
equipment (288,100.00) (50,000.00) -
Cost to remove existing
equipment 15,000.00 17,500.00 11,470.00
TOTAL $(273,100.00) $(32,500.00) $11,470.00 .
MAINTENANCE/SUPPORT TEN (10)YEARS
10 YEAR MAINTENANCE AMANO SKIDATA WPS
Maintenance-Year 1 206,462.00 1 192.10 138 420.00
22, ,
Maintenance-Year 2 299,881.00 163,241.70 205,900.00
Maintenance-Year 3 325,159.75 320,44.6.30 • 218,254.00
Maintenance-Year 4 350,527.25 330,844.20 229,985.00
Maintenance-Year 5 375,986.61 341,553.70 248,384.00
Maintenance-Year 6 401,543.04 352,583.40 270,698.00
Maintenance-Year 7 427,142.87 363,944.50 276,107.00
Maintenance-Year 8 452,948.55 375,646.40 284,391.00
Maintenance-Year 9 478,808.63 387,699.70 295,767.00
Maintenance-Year 10 504,777.81 400,114.60 310,555.00
TOTAL $3,823,237.52 $3,158,266.60 $2,478,461.00
Skidata is$664,970.92(17%)lower than Amano and $679,805.60(27%)higher than WPS.
SUMMARY/GRANDTOTAL OF ALL COSTS—TEN (10)YEARS:
AMANO SKIDATA WPS
Equipment Cost 2,885,500.00 2,830,004.00 2,332,315.00
Additional Installation Cost - 143,750.00 76,630.00
Software Cost 227,975.00 331,579.00 29,800.00
Existing Equipment (273,100.00) (32,500.00) 11,470.00
Maintenance Cost-10 YEARS 3,823,237.52 3,158,266.60 2,478,461.00
Other 305,475.00 362,079.00 330,460.00
TOTAL $6,969,087.52 $6,793,178.60 $5,259,136.00
Over a ten (10) year period, including all maintenance and support, the grand total cost of
Skidata is$175,908.92(3%)lower than Amano and $1,534,042.60(29%)higher than WPS.
780
- ATTACHMENT 4
City Commission Memorandum-Parking Garage Gated Revenue Control System
June 10,2015
Page 12 of 15
GATED REVENUE CONTROL SYSTEMS v. METERED OPERATIONS
ALTERNATIVE OPTION ANALYSIS
(EXHIBIT B)
Recently, the concept of operating municipal garages as metered operations in lieu of
gated revenue control systems was suggested. The Parking Department evaluated
these two alternative methods of operating the City's parking garages and the following
are the results.
Metered (pay station) parking is the standard in the industry for operating on-street
parking and surface parking lots. This is predominantly due to parking spaces being
dispersed over large geographic areas in these settings. Based on the concept
presented, staff evaluated the potential impacts of converting garage operations in the
City to metered operations. The following are high level impacts of operating garages
with meters:
• Parking gated revenue control systems garners 100% of parking revenues as users
must pay for their parking session prior to exit. Metered operations are based on
enforcement levels and would require more intensive staffing levels.
o The City's metered system has a compliance ratio of 85%, meaning 8.5 of 10
users pay for their parking. Therefore, 15% ($2.4M of$16M) in garage revenues
would stand to be lost, if operated with meters.
o In order to achieve the 85% compliance level 24/7 for all 10 garages, an
estimated 50 additional enforcement officers would be needed, at an estimated
cost of$2,818,400, including salaries, health and pension benefits.
o For the remaining 15% who do not pay, the City's citation capture rate is 10%,
which could generate approximately $972,000 in citation revenue (assuming a
90% collection rate), but the County retains $611,820 of this, which represents
the County's portion of 1/3 of citation revenue, as well as contributions to school
crossing guards and technology(Autocite)fund.
• Citations and related fines derived from parking enforcement often have negative
implications with the public. The City's portion of revenue generated from an $18
overtime parking citation equates to $6.67 per citation, after the County's fees are
assessed.
• Diminished revenues related to potential disabled placard abuse. Identity of placard
owner is not verified in metered facilities but is verified in staffed/gated garages.
In closing, the current cost of operating the gated revenue control systems in the City's
10 garages is $2,985,500. With technology enhancements and remote monitoring, labor
hours/costs are estimated to decrease by 40% to $1,800,000. Even taking the capital
costs of new equipment for all garages into account, the gated revenue control system
would appear more cost/revenue effective.
Additional detail is provided in the analysis below, including increased capital expenses
and other recurring operational expenses incurred with metered operations as
compared to gated revenue control systems.
781
City Commission Memorandum-Parking Garage Gated Revenue Control System
June 10, 2015
Page 13 of 15
GATED REVENUE CONTROL SYSTEMS - METER COMPARISON
Equipment $3,635,000 $0 $0 $3,635,000
Staffing $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $5,400,000
Maintenance $123,000 $164,000 $321,000 $608,000
TOTAL: $5,558,000 $1,964,000 $2,121,000 $9,643,000
137 METERS $1,027,500 $0 $0 $1,027,500
Staffing $2,818,400 $2,874,768 $2,932,263 $8,625,431
License Plate Recognition $767,350 $0 $0 $767,350
Vehicles
Maintenance $43,200 $43,200 $43,200 $129,600
Meter Collections $220,000 $220,000 $220,000 $660,000
TOTAL: $4,876,450 $3,137,968 $3,195,463 $11,209,881
CONCLUSION:
Even taking the capital costs of new equipment for all garages into account, the gated revenue control
system would appear more cost/revenue effective. Technology enhancements and remote monitoring
available with the new gated revenue control system result in a reduction of labor hours/costs of
approximately 40% to $1,800,000 (currently at$2,985,500). Furthermore, the cost of contracted labor at
living wage rates is significantly lower than City employee labor expense(salary/benefit/pension).
782
City Commission Memorandum-Parking Garage Gated Revenue Control System
June 10,2015
Page 14 of 15
EXHIBIT C
SUMMARY OF COST NEGOTIATIONS
Below please find original cost proposal submittal from each proposer due by February 6, 2015.
The chart below provides a chronology of negotiations and their respective results. Please note
the FINAL offer for each firm was confirmed as follows: Amano: April 23, 2015; Skidata: May 19,
2015; and WPS: March 19, 2015.
Original Cost Proposal After Site
Visits-Received February 6,2015 , AMANO SKIDATA WPS
Equipment Cost $2,883,500.00 $2,906,329.00 $2,370,745.00
Additional Installation Cost $0.00 $143,750.00 $76,630.00
Software Cost $227,975.00 $331,579.00 $29,800.00
Equipment Removal and Rebate -$213,100.00 $17,500.00 $11,470.00
Maintenance Cost $3,252,260.00 $3,518,161.00 $2,390,041.00
Other $655,500.00 _ $257,102.00 $476,704.00
PRELIMINARY TOTAL $6,806,135.00* $7,174,421.00* $5,355,390.00*
*After negotiation discussions with each Proposer to understand the cost proposals, staff requested
revised Cost Proposals which were received on March 12, 2015.
Revised Cost Proposal-Received
March 12,2015 AMANO SKIDATA WPS
Equipment Cost $2,883,500.00 $2,906,329.00 $2,332,315.00
Additional Installation Cost $0.00 $143,750.00 $76,630.00
Software Cost $227,975.00 $331,579.00 $29,800.00
Equipment Removal and Rebate -$273,100.00 -$32,500.00 $11,470.00
Maintenance Cost $3,002,040.00 $3,280,512.00 $2,478,461.00
Other $699,900.00 $217,102.00 $444,070.00
TOTAL $6,540,315.00 $6,846,772.00 $5,372,746.00
*Staff determined that the revised cost proposals contained errors and omissions or additional equipment
not requested by the City as follows.
Errors and Omissions AMANO SKIDATA WPS
Corrections for Mathematical Errors
on Cost Proposal -$346,975.00
Reduction for Supplemental Items
(Table 1) -$45,450.00
Add Cost of Dedicated Employee
Omitted from Amano's Cost Proposal $821,197.52
Corrections for Mathematical Errors
on Cost Proposal $72,743.56
Reduction for Supplemental Items
(Table 1) -$126,337.00
Corrections for Mathematical Errors
on Cost Proposal $28,200.00
Reduction for Supplemental Items
(Table 1) -$141,810.00
TOTAL $428,772.52 -$53,590.44 -$113,610.00
783
City Commission Memorandum—Parking Garage Gated Revenue Control System
June 10, 2015
Page 15 of 15
Final Adjustments Confirmed by
Proposers AMANO SKIDATA WPS
Date Confirmed by Proposer 4/23/2015 5/19/2015 3/19/2015
Equipment Cost $2,885,500.00 $2,830,004.00 $2,332,315.00
Additional Installation Cost $0.00 $143,750.00 $76,630.00
Software Cost $227,975.00 $331,579.00 $29,800.00
Equipment Removal and Rebate -$273,100.00 -$32,500.00 $11,470.00
Maintenance Cost $3,823,237.52 $3,158,266.60 $2,478,461.00
*Other $305,475.00 $362,079.00 $330,460.00
FINAL TOTAL $6,969,087.52 $6,793,178.60 _ $5,259,136.00
TABLE 1: SUPPLEMENTAL ITEMS
Items not necessary for implementation/operation of system but available to the City in the future on
an as needed basis.
AMANO
G7 Bollards($150 x 8=$1,200) $1,200.00
G8 Bollards($150 x 1 -$150) $150.00
010 Bollards ($150 x 2=$300) $300.00
Booth Removal(per booth) $2,000.00
Online Validation Software(eParcVal) $4,000.00
Daily pass online software(eFlexPass) $10,000.00
Bulk Validation Software(eFlexPrint) $6,000.00
Pedestrian Warning System(per system)($500 x 10 garages) $5,000.00
Basic signage package(per lane)($400 x 42 lanes) $16,800.00
TOTAL $45,450.00
SKIDATA r
WEBKey Managed System(annual fee year 1) $9,500.00
WEBKey Managed System(annual fee maintenance years 2-10) $98,617.00
Pedestrian Alert signage(Per Garage)($1,349 x 10 garages) $13,490.00
Lot Full Signage($473ea x 10 garages) $4,730.00
TOTAL $126,337.00
WPS
Pedestrian warning light&buzzer at each exit $8,160.00
Printed graphic static signage: Budget $20,000.00
Additional protective bollard if required: (Each) $450.00
Electronic locks for accessing equipment housings(Lump sum) $85,000.00
Booth Removal: Not to exceed$3,000.00 per booth Budget $3,000.00
Level Counting, Exterior Monument Sign: (Budget Each) $9,500.00
Floor Space Available Sign: (Budget Each) $2,800.00
Ramp counter for level counting using camera detection: (Each) $4,500.00
LPR Cameras, housing, and installation: (Each) $3,400.00
LPR site infrastructure where possible per lane: (Budget Each) $5,000.00
TOTAL $141,810.00
784
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
CITY MANAGER, PURSUANT TO INVITATION TO NEGOTIATE (ITN) 2014-
170-SW FOR A GATED REVENUE CONTROL SYSTEM FOR THE CITY'S
PARKING GARAGES; APPROVING THE MATERIAL TERMS OF AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND SKIDATA, INC., AS SET FORTH IN
THE TERM SHEET ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT "A" HERETO; AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO FINALIZE
THE AGREEMENT BASED UPON THE MATERIAL TERMS APPROVED
HEREIN; PROVIDED THAT THEY MAY MAKE ANY NON-SUBSTANTIVE AND
NON-MATERIAL REVISIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS TO THE AGREEMENT,
AS THEY DEEM NECESSARY; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY
CLERK TO EXECUTE THE FINAL AGREEMENT; AND, IN THE EVENT THAT
THE CITY IS UNABLE TO FINALIZE SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATIONS WITH
SKIDATA, INC., AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT WITH AMANO
MCGANN, INC. BASED UPON THE MATERIAL TERMS APPROVED IN
EXHIBIT "A" HEREIN (PROVIDED THAT THEY MAY MAKE ANY NON-
SUBSTANTIVE AND NON-MATERIAL REVISIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS TO
THE AGREEMENT).
WHEREAS, on May 21, 2014, the Mayor and City Commission authorized the issuance
of Invitation to Negotiate(ITN) 2014-170-SW for a Gated Revenue Control System for the City's
parking garages, including centralized processing of data for all of the City's parking garages; a
central monitoring station for intercoms and CCTV at all entrance and exit lanes; and
centralized access control for all garage equipment; and
WHEREAS, on May 22, 2014, ITN 2014-170-SW was issued with an opening date of
July 10, 2014; and
WHEREAS, on September 10, 2014, the Mayor and City Commission approved
Resolution 2014-28720, accepting the recommendation of the City Manager and authorizing the
Administration to enter into negotiations with all the proposers; to wit: Skidata Inc.; Amano
McGann, Inc.; LCN, Inc. d/b/a Consolidated Parking Equipment; WPS USA Corp.; and Scheidt
& Bachmann USA, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2014, the City was notified by Consolidated Parking
Equipment that it had withdrawn its proposal pursuant to the ITN; and
WHEREAS, on February 6, 2015, Scheidt& Bachmann USA, Inc. notified the City that it
had withdrawn its proposal pursuant to the ITN; and
WHEREAS, staff held several negotiation sessions with all three (3) proposers, as well
as a request for best and final cost proposals offers; and the Administration received final
replies to the referenced negotiations on May 19, 2015.
785
! • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, accept the recommendation of the
City Manager, pursuant to Invitation To Negotiate (ITN) 2014-170-SW for a gated revenue
control system for the City's parking garages; approving the material terms of an agreement
between the City and Skidata, Inc., as set forth in the term sheet attached as Exhibit"A" hereto;
authorizing the City Manager and the City Attorney's Office to finalize the Agreement based
upon the material terms approved herein; provided that they may make any non-substantive
and non-material revisions and/or additions to the Agreement, as they deem necessary;
authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the final Agreement; and, in the event that the
City is unable to finalize successful negotiations with Skidata, Inc., authorizing the City Manager
and the City Attorney's Office to negotiate an Agreement with Amano McGann, Inc. based upon
the material terms approved in Exhibit "A" herein (provided that they may make any non-
substantive and non-material revisions and/or additions to the Agreement).
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of 2015.
ATTEST:
Rafael E. Granado, City Clerk Philip Levine, Mayor
•
T:IAGENDA12015Uune1PROCUREMENTaN 2014-170-SW Parking Garage Gated Revenue Control System for the City of Miami Beach RESO.doc
APPROVED AS TO
FORM &LANGUAGE
&FOR EXECUTION
L 16
City Attorney a
786
TERM SHEET(EXHIBIT A)
BRIEF SCOPE OF WORK AMANO SKIDATA WPS
Removal/buy back of existing equipment, new equipment at all
garages, installation, hardware/software, 10 years
maintenance/support.
PROPOSED EQUIPMENT AMANO SKIDATA WPS
Submitted Submitted Submitted
_ Electronically Electronically Electronically
NEW EQUIPMENT COST-
INSTALLED AMANO SKIDATA WPS
Equipment 2,885,500.00 2,830,004.00 2,332,315.00
Installation - 143,750.00 76,630.00
Software Installation 227,975.00 331,579.00 29,800.00
Other 305,475.00 362,079.00 330,460.00
TOTAL $3,418,950.00 $3,667,412.00 $2,769,205.00
Skidata is $248,462(7%)higher than Amano and$898,207(32%)higher than WPS.
REBATE/BUYBACK OF EXISTING EQUIPMENT
EXISTING EQUIPMENT AMANO _ SKIDATA WPS
Rebate/Buy back for existing
equipment (288,100.00) (50,000.00) -
Cost to remove existing
equipment 15,000.00 17,500.00 11,470.00
TOTAL $(273,100.00) _ $(32,500.00) _ $11,470.00
MAINTENANCE/SUPPORT TEN (10)YEARS
10 YEAR MAINTENANCE AMANO SKIDATA WPS
Maintenance-Year 1 206,462.00 122,192.10 138,420.00
Maintenance-Year 2 299,881.00 163,241.70 205,900.00
Maintenance-Year 3 325,159.75 320,446.30 218,254.00
Maintenance-Year 4 350,527.25 330,844.20 229,985.00
Maintenance-Year 5 375,986.61 341,553.70 248,384.00
Maintenance-Year 6 401,543.04 352,583.40 270,698.00
Maintenance-Year 7 427,142.87 363,944.50 276,107.00
Maintenance-Year 8 452,948.55 375,646.40 284,391.00
Maintenance-Year 9 478,808.63 387,699.70 295,767.00
Maintenance-Year 10 504,777.81 400,114.60 310,555.00
TOTAL $3,823,237.52 $3,158,266.60 $2,478,461.00
Skidata is $664,970.92(17%) lower than Amano and $679,805.60(27%) higher than WPS.
SUMMARY/GRANDTOTAL OF ALL COSTS—TEN (10)YEARS: _
AMANO SKIDATA WPS
Equipment Cost 2,885,500.00 2,830,004.00 2,332,315.00
Additional Installation Cost - 143,750.00 76,630.00
Software Cost 227,975.00 331,579.00 29,800.00
Existing Equipment (273,100.00) (32,500.00) 11,470.00
Maintenance Cost- 10 YEARS 3,823,237.52 3,158,266.60 2,478,461.00
Other •305,475.00 362,079.00 330,460.00
TOTAL $6,969,087.52 $6,793,178.60 $5,259,136.00
Over a ten (10) year period, including all maintenance and support, the grand total cost of
Skidata is$175,908.92(3%)lower than Amano and $1,534,042.60(29%)higher than WPS.
T:IAGENDA120151June1PROCUREMENT1ITN 2014-170-SW Parking Garage Gated Revenue Control System for the City of Miami Beach MEMO
(20150526 KGB).doc
787
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
788
ATTACHMENTS
EXHIBIT 2
WALKER PARKING
CONSULTANTS
REPORT
GATED v. METERED
20 Park Plaza,Suite 1202
WALKER Boston,MA 02116
PARKING CONSULTANTS Office: 617.350.5040
www.walkerparking.com
August 10, 2015
Mr.Saul Frances
City of Miami Beach, Parking Department
1755 Meridian Avenue, Suite 200
Miami Beach, FL 33139
Re: Parking Revenue Control System Financial and Operational Analysis
Dear Mr. Frances:
The City of Miami Beach (the City) asked Walker Parking Consultants (Walker) to
compare (and contrast) gated and ungated revenue control systems for controlling
parking in the City's ten parking garages. The City had conducted an Invitation to
Negotiate (ITN) for a gated parking access and revenue control system (PARCS), and
provided a comparative analysis of the proposals and final pricing that was negotiated.
We were asked to compare the costs, revenue and operating expenses associated with
the gated systems proposed by Amano McGann and Skidata (in response to the City's
request for proposals), with an ungated, pay-by-plate multi-space meter system that
would be provided by T2 systems (the City's multi-space meter vendor), and to opine on
the differences.
Walker reviewed the relevant documents provided by the City, met with the relevant
staff members and toured the City's ten parking garages to assess potential meter
quantities, locations and enforcement. Following are Walker's findings and
recommendations, per the contracted Scope of Services:
A. Comment on the most common garage revenue control systems and best
practices(based on Walker's experience and project database):
Gated PARCS are by far the most common type of revenue control system for
parking garages. Walker estimates that more than 90%of all paid parking garage
systems in the U.S.are gated. There are many advantages and disadvantages of
each type of system; however, the two primary reasons that gated systems are
preferred is 'capture rate' and public relations.
Gated systems are designed to 'capture' payments from all the cars that enter
the garage, as cars would need to physically drive through a gate to exit without
paying. Metered lots rely on the honor system and/or enforcement. Good and
honest people that would never steal from a store (or drive through a parking
gate) often think nothing of 'stealing' parking by not paying at a parking meter.
•
Enforcement needs to be on every street on an hourly basis (or more frequently)
in order to 'capture' all violators, which is often perceived as cost-prohibitive.
To make matters worse, when people get 'caught' and receive citations,
enforcement is often viewed as 'punitive' and considered unfair. Note that
citations, by their very nature, are punitive, which often leads to poor public
relations. Enforcement is often thought of as the enemy (hiding behind a tree
waiting to pounce). Consider the name of the successful reality show about on-
street parking meter enforcement: "Parking Wars".
Furthermore, there is a certain amount of anxiety associated with pre-paying for
parking at a parking meter. The motorist needs to accurately predict how long
they will be parking, and if they're wrong, they risk receiving that punitive citation.
Motorists may elect to 'overpay' for parking to avoid a ticket, but this can lead to
resentment (no-one likes to overpay for goods or services). Note that the City has
implemented a pay-by-cell phone option that notifies motorists when time is
expiring; and enables motorists to add time remotely.
Another reason gated facilities are so predominant is because conventional .
parking meters are extremely limited in functions,features and audit control. New
meter technologies have addressed most of these issues; however these
technologies are still perceived as relatively new. Conventional parking meters
are still controlling the majority of metered spaces throughout the country. Most
municipalities seem to go with the status quo, either for financial or political
reasons, lack of awareness, and/or because the public is generally resistant to
change.
Most system upgrades remain as they were (either gated or ungated). Gated
garages replace cashiers with pay-on-foot stations, and ungated garages
replace single-space meters with multi-space meters.
The City of Miami Beach has already proven to be forward thinking in this regard,
having already implemented pay-by-plate multi-space meters on-street and in its
surface lots, POF stations in its garages,and by considering meters for the garages.
Multi-space meters (MSMs) are consistent with several best practices in on-street
parking: •
• MSMs provide more ways to pay (credit cards and/or bills).
• They dramatically improve audit control.
• They provide valuable statistical data for planning purposes.
Gated pay-on-foot (POF) systems are also consistent with those best practices,
and both systems also keep traffic moving at the exits and reduce or eliminate the
need for cashiers in.a garage (best practices).
Following is a list of comparative advantages, disadvantages and differences
between gated POF and ungated metered garage systems:
•
2
•
•
1. As previously stated, gated systems capture a higher percentage of paid
parking transactions. Metered systems rely on the honor system and
enforcement.
2. Gated parking systems offer a higher level of customer service
a) Gated equipment includes intercoms for customer assistance (meters do
not).
b) Gated equipment provides change for cash transactions (meters do not).
c) As previously stated, motorists don't need to worry about receiving a
citation if their plans change and they are delayed, or overpaying for
parking if they decide to leave earlier than they planned.
3. Gated systems are more expensive to purchase, install, maintain and operate
than metered systems. There is far more equipment required for a gated
system, as all entry and exit lanes need to be controlled. There are far more
moving parts, requiring more maintenance and repair than metered systems.
Installation requires equipment islands, power and communication
infrastructure, and planning for vehicular queuing at both the entrances and
exit lanes as cars will need to wait for the entry or exit transaction to be
conducted. This can reduce the parking supply.
4. Throughput at entry and exit lanes is faster in a gateless (metered) scenario, as
vehicles are not required to stop at the entrance or exit to access the gate. In
the event of a mass entrance or exit (event parking), the transaction times at
the gates can cause back-ups, reducing customer service levels. Pay-on-foot
stations remove the payment process from the exit lane, expediting the exit
process, but back-ups can still occur as people locate the parking ticket and
insert it into the exit verifier. Unfortunately, one car struggling at the exit verifier
•
causes a ripple effect of delays during mass exits.
5. Pay-on-foot (or pay-in-lane) gated systems enable the system to run without a
staff presence. There will still be the need for human intervention when a
motorist loses or damages their parking ticket, is unable or unwilling to pay the
required fee, or if the system malfunctions; however, an intercom system is
utilized to allow motorists to communicate with staff remotely. Ideally staff will
be close enough to respond in person, but it's also possible to raise the gate
remotely if staff is unable to respond in person.
6. Metered systems do not require a staff presence either, and require even less
customer assistance, as there are no tickets or gates involved (hence on
intercoms installed in meters). Note that in comparing staffing needs, the
ongoing cost to enforce an ungated system is significant, and can eventually
surpass the purchase and installation cost of a gated system, depending on
staffing levels, maintenance and service contracts.
7. Gated systems accommodate monthly parkers via card access, automatic .
vehicle identification or license plate recognition technology. Pay-by-plate
metered systems use the license plate as the monthly credential.
8. Gated systems come with facility count systems, enabling the owner to know
garage occupancy and plan accordingly for monthly parkers or other pre-
paid/reserved parking. Metered systems do not include count systems.
9. Gated systems are typically post-pay, allowing for an easy validated parking
process, including on-line validation systems. Metered systems are pre-pay,
3
making the validation process more challenging. The motorist needs to
receive the validation in advance.
10. Metered systems cannot verify driver licenses for American with Disability Act
(ADA) eligibility. The City's POF system captures a photographic image.
11.Gated systems reduce the incidence of stolen vehicles, as the entry ticket
needs to be processed to exit the garage. While not foolproof, it is a
disincentive.
B. Revenue control systems for parking garages deployed in public and private
systems within the last two years:
Walker has been involved in forty-five garage revenue control projects in the past
two years. Forty-two involved gated PARCS and three involved meters. The
following three projects involved the installation of multi-space parking meters:
• Stamford Town Center, a private shopping mall in Connecticut, is in the
process of upgrading from conventional parking meters to pay-by-space
• multi-space meters. Management was concerned about queuing issues if
they installed a gated system. Pre-existing meter poles are being used to
install space number signs. The mall has a pre-existing arrangement
whereby the City of Stamford conducts enforcement for a portion of the
citation revenue.
• Union Station, a transit center in Springfield, MA, is building a garage that
will utilize pay-by-space multi-space meters. Pay-by-space meters were
chosen due to lower capital costs, concerns about back-ups at the exit
and because the City of Springfield has a pre-existing enforcement
department. Transit center garages typically have mass exits when trains
arrive; therefore, a gateless system is viewed as more efficient and user-
friendly in regard to exiting traffic.
• The Government of Alberta, Canada, is building a garage in Edmonton
that will utilize gates for monthly parkers but pay-by-space multi-space
meters for transient parking. Management felt a gateless system for
transient parkers would be easier to manage.
This is remarkably consistent with the City's survey, as 93% of our PARCS garage
projects involved gated systems, and 93% of the 121 garages surveyed by Miami
Beach were gated. While all three of these meter projects involve pay-by-space,
Walker has been involved in several pay-by-plate projects for on-street systems.
It should be noted that Walker has also worked on several projects involving single-
space smart meters; however they were also for on-street systems. This study will
focus on pay-by-plate multi-space meters, as the City currently employs this
technology on-street, which is why it is being considering it in the 10 garages.
C. Cost of equipment-actual cost comparison of gated revenue control systems like
Skidata and Amano vs. pay stations like T2, analyzed over a ten year period,
including service contracts:
As stated previously, gated systems are significantly more expensive to purchase
than ungated (metered) systems. This is particularly true for the City's ten parking
4
garages. A gated system replacement will exceed$3 million, compared with$1.8
million for a gateless metered system.
Walker estimates a total of 95 cash and credit card multi-space meters will be
required for a gateless metered system, at a cost of$7,700 per meter, or$731,500.
This assumes locating the meters in groupings, on the ground floor (or other floors
g 9 p g g (
that connect to significant ingress or egress from the facility). Consideration was
given to locating meters on individual floors; however, motorists typically park on
the lowest available floor, so that demand would be `floor by floor'. This could
cause lines at the meters. Locating them all on the ground floor (or other floors
that connect to significant ingress or egress from the facility)will enable fewer total
meters to serve more motorists.
This also eliminates the incidence of someone making a meter payment in an
isolated area on an upper floor of a garage, which could be a safety/security
concern, and it reduces the potential of a motorist walking up to an isolated meter
and finding it out of service and needing to locate another meter. It is also more
efficient for maintenance and collections.
Meter Quantities per Garage:
Name Location Spaces Daily POFs MSMS Spaces per Transactions
Transactions MSM per Meter
G1 7th Street 646 858' 4 10 65 86
G2 . 12th Street 134 • 216 1 3 45 72
G3 13th Street 286 452 2 5 57 90
G4 16th Street 803 805 4 10 80 81
G5 17th Street 1460 2,375 14 24 61 99
G6 42nd Street 620 295 3 8 78 37
G7 City Hall 650 126 8 5 130 25
G8 5th &Alton 1050 167 6 8, 131 21
G9 Penn.Ave. 560 318 5 10 56 32
G10 Sunset Harbor 430 542 6 8 54 68
Spares-TBD 4
TOTALS 6639 6,155 53 95 70 65
Note that four units are designated as spares, to be determined after reviewing
meter payment patterns, in the event that a garage or garages are underserved.
One of the challenges with pay-by-plate meters is the learning curve for people
who don't know their license plate number. If the meters were located on all floors
(at the elevators), people would have a shorter trip back to their cars (to retrieve
the license plate number). Walker recommends installing significant signage on
all floors and elevators, advising people to note their license plates for the meter
payment. Walker also recommends promoting pay-by-cell as a payment tool,
thereby eliminating the need to enter the license plate at the meter.
5
•
In the event that the city decides to locate meters on each floor, the total number
of meters would increase from 95 to 137. The cost would increase from $731,500
to$1 million.
Metered systems also require vigilant enforcement, or meter payments decrease
and motorists become less concerned about overstaying the time on meter. The
City's on-street enforcement team commands an impressive 85% compliance
rate. Walker recommends mobile license plate recognition (LPR) for garage
enforcement and recommends a total of ten enforcement vehicles be purchased
for the ten garages at a cost of $25,000 per vehicle, or $250,000. Note that only
eight or nine vehicles will be in use at any given time (see Section D); however a
back-up vehicle is recommended in the event of a breakdown or accident.
Ten mobile LPR enforcement systems will also be required at a cost of$45,000 per
unit, or$450,000.
Note that no more than nine vehicles will be in service at any given time, and only
3 vehicles will be utilized during the slowest overnight periods, allowing vehicles to
be rotated out of service periodically to preserve their service life. That being said,
the vehicles and units will still experience significant use (170 hours per day).
Walker budgeted for 50% of the vehicles and LPR systems to be replaced within
ten years.
Ten citation handheld units are also required, at a cost of$96,000.
Purchase Costs:
AMANO SKIDATA T2
GATED PARCS GATED PARCS UNGATED MSMs
PARCS Equipment Installed $3,145,850 $3,634,912
Multi-Space Meters Installed $731,500
Mobile LPR System/Handhelds $1,130,000
TOTAL PURCHASE PRICE $3,145,850 $3,634,912 $1,861,500
The complexity of the gated PARCS requires significant maintenance.
Maintenance contracts double the PARCS equipment cost over a ten year period.
Gated systems also require servers and workstations, while the T2 meter system is
hosted, requiring ongoing monthly management, communication and
transaction fees (included as maintenance costs).
Walker also included mobile LPR and handheld maintenance and warranty costs,
as well as T2's 'Digital Connect' transaction fees ($0.02 per transaction in excess
of 2,000 per meter per month) as ongoing maintenance costs. We also included
estimates for vehicle maintenance and gasoline.
6
Ten year Service Contract and Maintenance Costs:
AMANO SKIDATA T2
GATED PARCS GATED PARCS UNGATED MSMs
PARCS Maintenance and Warranty $3,823,238 $3,158,267 $0
T2 Meter Warranty $361,000
Metered EMS Hosted Services $570,000
T2 Digital Connect Transaction Fees $95,200
Enforcement Maintenance and Warranty $378,000
Enforcement Licensing and Support $118,800
Vehicle Maintenance and Gasoline $332,335
TOTAL TEN MAINTENANCE YEAR COST $3,823,238 $3,158,267 $1,523,000
The largest operating expense for both systems is labor. Labor costs are detailed
below, followed by a recap of all expenses over a ten year period.
D. Cost of labor - Operational cost comparison of labor associated with gated
revenue control systems like Skidata and Amano vs. pay stations like T2:
The City has determined that by implementing the new gated PARCS, annual
staffing costs can be reduced significantly; from $2,985,500 to $1,800,000, saving
almost $1.2 million per year. All but one cashier/attendant will be eliminated
during most shifts by expanding POFs and implementing centralized remote
monitoring (via intercoms and audio/video) for customer interactions.
The metered system eliminates all attendants and cashiers, similar to on-street;
however, as previously stated, vigilant enforcement is required. Enforcement
staffing will cost $2.2 million per year, or $22 million over ten years. Staff is also
required for maintenance and collections; adding an additional $300,000 per
year, or$3 million over ten years.
The total cost of labor for a°gated PARCS is $1.8 million per year, or$18 million
over ten years. The total cost for the T2 metered system is estimated at $2.5
million per year, or$25.2 million over ten years.
•
Ten Year Labor Costs:
AMANO SKIDATA T2
GATED PARCS GATED PARCS UNGATED MSMs
PARCS Staffing $18,000,000 $18,000,000
Meter Enforcement $22,099,705
Meter Maintenance $1,483,978
Meter Collections $1,591,583
TOTAL TEN YEAR LABOR COSTS $18,000,000 $18,000,000 $25,175,265
Walker assumes the following staff requirements for enforcement, maintenance
and collections:
• Eight enforcement staff driving LPR vehicles from 9:00 am through 3:00 am
Monday through Thursday.
• Nine enforcement staff driving LPR vehicles from 9:00 am through 3:00 am
Friday.through Sunday (busier transient activity).
• Three enforcement staff driving LPR vehicles 3:00 am through 9:00 am every
day (reduced activity).
• Two 8-hour maintenance technicians on-duty each day.
• Each meter will be collected every other day.
Enforcement and maintenance staff are City employees. Payroll is estimated at
a blended rate of$25 per hour plus 43%for taxes and benefits.
Collections are done by the City's operator at a rate of$9.70 per meter.
A recap of all costs over a ten year period follows:
Total Ten Year Costs
AMANO SKIDATA T2
GATED PARCS GATED PARCS UNGATED MSMs
TOTAL PURCHASE PRICE $3,145,850 $3,634,912 $1,622,500
TEN YEAR MAINTENANCE COST $3,823,238 $3,158,267 $1,523,000
TEN YEAR STAFFING COST $18,000,000 $18,000,000 $25,175,265
TOTAL TEN YEAR COST $24,969,088 $24,793,179 $28,320,765 ,
8
Enforcement staffing for the T2 metered system overshadows the higher priced
purchase and maintenance costs of a gated PARCS system, making the costs for
the T2 gated system$3.4 million higher than the Amano PARCS over ten years,and
$3.5 million higher than the Skidata PARCS over ten years..
E. Technological advancements/trends. What is the trend of equipment being
installed in new construction municipal/university garages? Will the equipment
the City is contemplating purchasing from Skidata be obsolete five years from
now? Will the trending increase in pay-by-phone users diminish the need and
utility of the equipment the City is contemplating purchasing from Skidata?
Technologies such as pay-by-cell, mobile apps and license plate recognition are
trending as cutting edge solutions; however, the most common type of PARCS
being installed in garages today is a gated pay-on-foot system.
Pay-by-cell, pay-by-plate, mobile apps and license plate recognition may
eventually threaten to replace gated systems, but for now they simply compliment
them or offer an alternative. As stated previously, pay-by-cell transactions
typically represent less than 20% of all• transactions, and therefore are not
significant enough to replace infrastructure; however, pay-by-cell use is
increasing, already at 20%in Miami Beach.
Walker is aware of a handful of garages in the United States that have gone
gateless; however, they represent far less than 1% of all PARCs installations. We
expect to see more gateless facilities as technologies improve and more owners
consider these options;however,it is more likely that gateless garages will become
a common alternative than that gated systems, and/or Skidata will become
obsolete. Skidata is a large, modern and well established PARCS manufacturer.
Skidata's market share has been growing in the United States.
F. Comparison and capture rate -compare both technologies during large special
events and major impact periods. What is the capture rate of T2 pay stations?
Users of the app?
Gated systems are challenging during events, as mass entrances and exits create
back-ups in the drive lanes. Most parking garages convert to pre-pay during
events, as the traffic back-ups that occur while vehicles are exiting the garage
are longer than while entering. Most garages also raise the exit gates during mass
exits to expedite the exit process. When patrons are waiting in a line of vehicles,
they frequently blame the facility for not having a faster exit process. The delay
may be related to traffic congestion on the street rather than in the garage;
however, in some people's minds, perception is reality.
Gateless systems are always pre-pay, and the entry and exit is always
unobstructed,unless the mass entrance or exit causes congestion. In this scenario
it is usually more obvious to the motorists that the garage is not responsible for the
delay (although some will wonder why there aren't more lanes).
Capture rates are typically tied to enforcement; however, if there are not enough
meters to accommodate a mass entrance, some people will get frustrated and
risk a citation rather than being late for the event because they have to wait in
9
•
line to pay a meter. This type of citation invariably leads to an appeal, blaming
the garage for not having enough meters and contributing to poor public
relations.
Apps that enable the prepayment of parking help to expedite the entry and/or
exit process, as the motorists can bypass the POFs or MSMS completely. Walker
does not have statistical data on usage; however,pre-paid apps represent a small
percentage of overall transactions and are typically included with pay-by-cell
phone apps, which represent less than 20% of all transactions at most facilities,
although 20%in Miami Beach.
G. Cost of Enforcement - additional labor cost of adding garages to parking
enforcement officers' routes? Additional revenue to City above and beyond
average parking fee resulting from parking citations being issued? Also, most pay
station users pay for more time than they actually use, adding to the bottom line.
Additional revenue to City above and beyond average parking fee with gated
revenue control systems versus T2 pay station where users over-pay for parking?
• Enforcement costs are detailed in Section D.
• Citation revenue is detailed in Sections N and Q.
• Revenue from prepaying at the meters is addressed in Section S.
H. Adjustment of Parking Rates - Which system provides more flexibility based on
what level of the garage you park in? Which system allows for readily
• distinguishing between residents and non-residents allowing for different price
structures for each?
Gated PARCS cannot independently distinguish where a vehicle was parked;
however, parking guidance system vendors such as Park Assist offer camera
based guidance systems that can integrate with the PARCS system to identify
where the vehicle parked when calculating the fee.. Amano has done this with
Park Assist in a pay-on-foot gated system. We have no doubt that Skidata could
do this as well, and there are other parking guidance vendors as well.
Pay-by-license plate meters also cannot independently distinguish where a
vehicle was parked. Mobile LPR provides GPS software that can identify vehicle
locations, so theoretically an integration is possible whereby location-based rate
structures are possible; however, we are not aware of any current installations.
It may be possible to try to restrict meter payments to the level that the vehicle
parked on in order to conduct location-based parking rates; however this would
be largely unenforceable and would simply rely on motorists paying for parking on
the level where they parked. Note that Walker recommends locating most
parking meters on the ground floors (or other floors with significant ingress or egress
from the facility).
Pay-by-space meter systems allow for location-based parking rates; however
Walker believes the benefits of license plate enforcement outweigh the benefits
of location-based pricing, and payment modes are restricted to either one or the
other.
10
Resident and non-resident parking is addressed on Section T.
I. Pre-paid parking reservations-which system is more effective?
Reservation systems, mobile applications (apps) and pay-by-cell (PbC) allow
patrons to reserve and pay for parking prior to arriving at the Garage.
Benefits of a reservation system include receiving the parking payment in
advance, which helps insure the motorist will not park elsewhere, enhancing
revenue, as well as contact and travel information about the motorist for data
collection and marketing purposes. Perhaps most importantly, pre-paid
reservations eliminate the need to conduct a transaction in the garage, reducing
congestion in the entry and exit lanes of a gated system, and reducing foot traffic
at the MSM of POF.
Most reservation systems will offer cloud based solutions, reducing capital outlay
and/or infrastructure costs,and most providers will host the system as well. In order
for the system to be successful it needs to integrate with the PARCS software to
control and maintain inventory and revenue. Since these systems are relatively
new to the U.S., there may be costs associated with customizing the PARCS
software to integrate with the reservation system.
Metered systems do not include facility counts, consequently the garage runs the
risk of filling before a reserved/prepaid customer arrives. A facility count system
can be installed independently, or a stationary or mobile LPR system can provide
facility status to insure that the garage maintains parking availability for pre-paid
porkers-including monthly parkers.
J. Revenue and Expense Impacts of Metered vs. proposed PARCS replacement or
other alternative system:
Annual garage revenue is currently $16 million (in a gated PARCS setting). In a
metered scenario the City has experienced an 85% compliance rate, reducing
annual revenue by 15%, or$2.4 million.
In the current PARCS setting, ADA motorists are required to show their driver's
license in order to receive validated parking. In a metered setting, ADA motorists
will not need to show their driver's licenses, which will lead to abuse. Walker
estimates that the number of (unpaid) ADA parking sessions will double, costing
the City an additional $255,000 per year (the current annual value of ADA
validated parking in the garages).
Citation revenue will generate $5.7 million; however, the County retains 33% of
citation revenue and 30% goes to the school crossing guards and technology
(Autocite) fund. This leaves$2.1 million for the City
We estimate a 3% ($480,000) revenue bump from overpayments due to prepaying
at the meters.
Citation revenue is discussed in Sections N and Q. Overpayments are discussed in
Section S.
•
11
The net impact from the above is an annual loss of $55,000 with the T2 metered
system, or$550,000 over ten tears.
Ten Year Revenues
AMANO SKIDATA T2
GATED PARCS GATED PARCS UNGATED MSMs
Transaction Revenue $160,000,000 $160,000,000 $160,000,000
Loss Due to Non-Payment • ($26,547,670)
Citation Revenue $57,425,027
Citation Revenue to
County/Crossing Guards/Autocite ($36,177,767)
Meter Overpayments $4,800,000
TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUE $160,000,000 $160,000,000 $159,499,590
Expenses were detailed in Sections C and D. Following are the ten year total costs:
•
Ten Year Net
AMANO SKIDATA T2
GATED PARCS GATED PARCS UNGATED MSMs
TOTAL TEN YEAR NET $135,030,912 $135,206,821 $131,178,824
K. Calculate,project and compare the total purchase,installation,service and repair
• costs of the Skidata equipment being considered by the City vs.the T2 pay stations
over al0-year period, including service contracts.
This analysis was conducted along with Amano equipment, in detail, under
sections C and D. The total costs are recapped in Section J above.
L. Using salary data provided by the City, project and compare the labor savings
(excluding parking enforcement)associated with installing the Skidata equipment
being considered by the City vs. installing T2 pay stations:
The City has determined that by implementing the new gated PARCS, annual
staffing costs can be reduced significantly; from $2,985,500 to $1,800,000, saving
almost $1.2 million per year. While significant, the T2 metered system eliminates
garage staff except for enforcement, maintenance and collections;similar to on-
street meters. If we exclude enforcement, the T2 metered staffing costs are just
$307,000 per year (compared to$1.8 million per year with Skidata).
12
The ten-year difference is staggering ($18 million for PARCS vs. $1.6 million for
meters); however note that meter enforcement costs are $2.2 million per year, or
$22 million over ten years.
M. Recommend the number of parking enforcement officers required to patrol the 10
garages if the City installs the T2 pay stations, and using salary data provided by
the City, estimate the associated costs:
Walker recommends implementing mobile license plate recognition to enforce
the 10 parking garages. The City currently uses mobile LPR to enforce permit
parking.
Mobile LPR utilizes vehicle mounted cameras that read and record license plate
numbers as the vehicle is driven through parking lots, garages or on-street. A
processor is typically installed in the trunk,and a touch screen computer is installed
between the driver seat and the passenger seat. All data is downloaded and
stored in a separate stationary workstation/server.
The LPR software receives real-time databases and updates of paid license plates
from parking meter, pay-by cell, and permit/monthly software. If the LPR camera
reads a plate that is not recorded as registered or paid, an audible alarm ("ping")
alerts the enforcement officer,who verifies the license plate and cites the vehicle.
As stated in Section D, Walker recommends the following staffing levels for
enforcement, maintenance and collections:
• Eight enforcement staff driving 8 LPR vehicles from 9:00 am through 3:00 am
Monday through Thursday. Seven vehicles have garage assignments (see
below) and one vehicle is a 'floater', providing supplemental coverage,
based on parking and traffic conditions.
• Nine enforcement staff driving 9 LPR vehicles from 9:00 am through 3:00 am
Friday through Sunday (adding a second 'floater' vehicle for supplemental
coverage during busier transient activity).
• Three enforcement staff driving 3 LPR vehicles 3:00 am through 9:00 am
every day (reduced activity).
• Two 8-hour maintenance technicians on-duty each day.
• Each meter will be collected every other day.
Following is a breakdown of recommended mobile LPR coverage per garage:
LPR Coverage: Monday through Thursday 9:00 am-3:00 am
TOTAL TRANSIENT
LPR GARAGE LOCATION SPACES SPACES
Vehicle 1 G1 7th Street 646 549
G2 12th Street 134 87
G3 13th Street 286 258
SPACES 1,066 894
13
-
Vehicle 2 G4 16th Street 803 591
SPACES 803 591 •
Vehicles 3&4 G5 16th Street 1,460 1,037
G9 Penn.Ave. 560 446
• SPACES 2,020 1,483
Vehicle 5 G6 42nd Street 620 312
SPACES 620 312
Vehicle 6 G7 City Hall 650 231
G10 Sunset Harbor 430 359
SPACES 1,080 590
•
Vehicle 7 G8 5th &Alton 1,050 988
SPACES 1,050 988
Vehicle 8 Supplemental coverage based on activity.
On Fridays,Saturdays and Sundays, a second `floater' vehicle is added to provide
supplemental coverage during busier transient activity on weekends.
LPR Coverage: Monday through Thursday 3:00 am-9:00 am
TOTAL TRANSIENT
LPR GARAGE LOCATION SPACES SPACES
Vehicle 1 G1 7th Street 646 549
. G2 12th Street 134 87
G3 13th Street 286 258
G4 16th Street 803 591
SPACES 1,869 1,485
Vehicle 2 G5 17th Street 1,460 1,037
G7 City Hall 650 312
G9 Penn.Ave. 560 446
SPACES 2,670 1,795
Vehicle 3 G6 42nd Street 620 231
G8 5th &Alton 1,050 988
G10 Sunset Harbor 430 359
. I
SPACES 2,100 1,578
The total hours required for enforcement averages 170 hours per day, or 62,000
hours per year. Using a fully loaded, blended hourly rate of $35.67, the annual
14
payroll for enforcement is projected to be $2.2 million per year, or$22 million over
ten years.
Note that this does not include hourly rate increases during the ten year period.
Walker recommends utilizing Go-4 three-wheel vehicles for mobile LPR
enforcement. These vehicles are smaller than regular cars (52.5" wide), allowing
them to stop to write a citation without blocking traffic,as cars will be able to drive
around them. Pricing ($25,000) is comparable to the Ford C-Max Hybrid vehicle
currently being recommended by the Fleet Management Division.
N. Using on-street data provided by the City, extrapolate the projected citation
revenue for the 10 parking garages generated from non-payment and/or
overtime parking if T2 pay stations are installed:
The City's existing meter system has an 85% compliance rate, meaning that 85%
of all parkers pay for their parking. The City's citation capture rate is just 10%,which
means that only 10% of all unpaid parkers are cited. The City averages a 90%
collection rate for citations.
The parking garages generated 2.2 million paid.transactions last year. If 15% of
those transactions were unpaid,that would represent 337,000 unpaid transactions.
If the City cited 10% of those parkers and collected the $18.00 fine from 90% of
them, the revenue generated would total almost $5.5 million; however, the City
only retains 37%of the citation revenue. The County retains 33%and 30%goes to
the school crossing guards and technology (Autocite) fund. This leaves
approximately $2,000,000 for the City; however we need to factor in the unpaid
meter revenue in order to determine the net result.
• The average parking garage transaction is equal to $7.00. This means that the
approximate value of. the 337,000 unpaid parking transactions is $2.4 million,
leaving a net loss of $400,000 per year. Note that this assumes a 90% citation
collection rate.
While not addressed in our financial projections, Walker is concerned about the
current $18.00 fine for a parking meter violation. The daily maximum rate in most
garages is $20.00; therefore it would be less expensive to receive a citation than
to pay the daily maximum rate. Some motorists would risk an $18.00 citation for
shorter time frames as well. The fine amount will need to be increased or meter
compliance will be significantly reduced.
O. Opine on installing license plate recognition (LPR) technology at the garage
entrances and integrating with the T2 pay stations to improve enforcement. Is a
100%capture rate possible?
Stationary LPR uses stationary cameras at the entrances (and/or exits) of a facility
to capture the license plate images of cars as they enter and/or exit the facility.
System software saves the license plate images, converts them into text records
and records the times the vehicles entered (and/or exited) the facility.
15
In a metered parking facility, the software can integrate with multi-space meter,
pay-by cell phone and/or permit/monthly software to identify unpaid vehicles for
enforcement purposes. Theoretically, this could create a, 100% capture rate;
however, this is predicated upon the cameras capturing 100%of all license plates,
which rarely occurs. Mobile LPR is not perfect. LPR cameras can only read what
they can see. Bicycle racks and similar things in tow can obscure the plate. Older, .
faded or dirty plates are tougher to read. The percentage of license plates that
are read by the system is considered the capture rate. Walker conducted a study
and found the average capture rate for stationary cameras to be 91.7%, which
means that almost 10%of the license plates were not captured by the system.
Furthermore, every state has different types, colors, fonts and plate designs,
making it more challenging for the software to identify some numbers and letters,
and the software sometimes confuses similar numbers and letters, such as 0 and
Q,or S and 5, or B and 8,etc. The percentage of license plates that are read 100%
accurately is called the read rate. Walker's study found an average accuracy
rate of 91.5%; however, note that 6 of 7 digits were read accurately 97.1% of the
time, 5 of 7 digits were read accurately 98.6% of the time and 4 of 7 digits were
read accurately 99.1% of the time. These partial reads would still enable the
system to identify the vehicle as paid or unpaid with enforcement staff providing
visual confirmation.
That being said, 10% of the vehicles will not be captured by the system. Today's
technology cannot provide a 100% capture rate. However, on-street
enforcement reportedly captures just 10% of the meter violations on-street;
therefore, 90%would be a significant improvement. There are also considerable
operating cost savings that may or may not be higher than a 10%loss in revenue.
Note that LPR technology is constantly improving. A few years ago 80% was
considered a high capture or read rate. Today, several manufacturers report
achieving 95% to 98% capture and/or accuracy rates; however we have not
confirmed this level of accuracy.
Note that Walker is recommending mobile (vehicle mounted) license plate
recognition rather than stationary LPR,as mobile LPR enables enforcement staff to
cite the vehicle when the system identifies the vehicle. Stationary LPR identifies
the vehicle when it is in violation but does not know where the vehicle is located.
LPR technology has made the post-processing of citations a new and potentially
efficient method for issuing citations. Rather than .placing citations on the
windshields of vehicles, all photographic images of potentially citable vehicles
would be reviewed after the fact (back at the office), in a processing center.
Confirmed citations would be delivered to motorists via U.S. mail. This is similar to
red-light camera enforcement, but is not yet authorized for parking enforcement
in most municipalities, including Miami Beach:
Post-processing could significantly reduce or even eliminate staffing costs for
mobile LPR, as stationary LPR (at the entrances and exits) would make driving
through the garages for meter enforcement unnecessary. Note that visual
inspections would no longer be possible for partial plate reads, and that partial
reads would probably not be considered a valid citation upon appeal; however,
16
the annual enforcement savings of almost $1.4 million per year would more than
cover the lost citation revenue.
This is similar to the SunPass toll system,which debits SunPass holder's accounts and
mails out citations for non-compliance. SunPass is now being offered at several
airports. SunPass is also starting to offer the technology to parking garages (for a
small percentage of each transaction).
P. Opine on increased pay-by-phone and similar pay-in-advance technologies and
I undermine the justification of using they potentially u de justification g ated revenue control gated
Pay-by-cell is far more common in metered settings than gated settings; however,
pay-by-cell can be used in a gated setting if bar code readers are employed.
Proof of payment(or validation) in the form of a bar code (either paper or on a
smartphone or other computerized device) can be scanned by a barcode reader
at an entrance gate if the fee has been prepaid or pre-validated, and/or at the
g p p p
exit gate if the ticket was validated or paid after the vehicle entered the facility.
The impact of pay-by-cell is a reduction in pay-on-foot or multi-space meter
transactions, as pay-by-cell bypasses the payment machine. This is considered a
customer service amenity, as the parking payment is typically more convenient
when conducted via .cellphone, particularly if the license plate is pre-registered
and doesn't need to be entered for each parking session.
As stated previously, pay-by-cell transactions are typically fewer than 20% of all
transactions, and therefore not significant enough to reduce infrastructure;
however, pay-by-cell use is increasing, already at 20%in Miami Beach.
Pay-by-cell requires an additional layer of integration for a metered system, as the
enforcement system (such as LPR) needs to receive the pay-by-cell payment
data.
Q. Using on-street data provided by the City, extrapolate the projected citation
revenue for violations other than no-payment or overtime parking if T2 pay stations
are installed in the 10 garages(i.e. handicap violations, expired tags, etc.):
Approximately 64% of all parking citations are for unpaid (overtime) meters. This
means that 36%of all parking citations are for other offences, such as restricted or
prohibited parking, statute violations, an invalid license plate or unauthorized
parking in a handicap parking space. There are fewer occasions for motorists to
park illegally in a garage than on-street. It does occur, but far less frequently.
Walker extrapolated the percentages of various parking citations issued last year
in relation to the number of spaces enforced, in order to determine the potential
for citation revenue from non-metered parking violations in the garages.
Note that only police personnel cite for invalid tags (5% of all citations), so we
eliminated these citations. We assumed 80% of on-street percentages for ADA
violations and 10% for other infractions. Walker estimates that citation revenue
from non-meter parking violations will generate approximately $600,000. Note
that this assumes a 90%citation collection rate. Also note that as stated previously,
17
the City will only receive approximately 37% of the citation revenue, or
approximately $223,000 per year.
R. Opine on the potential useful life of the Skidata equipment being considered by
the City. Is obsolescence a relevant issue in comparing Skidata and T2 systems?
The useful life of most parking equipment is rated at eight to ten years depending
upon frequency of use, climate, and how well it's maintained. This is similar for
both meters and for gated PARCS; however, there are many instances of parking
equipment lasting far longer. Maintenance and repair costs typically increase as
the equipment ages.
Obsolescence is rare. For example, conventional parking meters have been
around for 80 years, and while they are extremely limited in their features and
functionality, Walker estimates that 4 million are still installed in the United States
alone; Gated PARCS have been in existence for almost as long, and although
there is a lot of talk about gates"going away"due to cell phone,apps and license
plate recognition technology, only a handful of garages have removed their
gates to date.
During the kick-off meeting concerns were raised about the demise of Federal
APD, once a leading PARCS manufacturer. There was some concern about the
industry overall. Federal APD was in decline when 3M acquired them, and while
Walker does not know why or what happened internally,we view it as an anomaly
rather than a sign of things to come. PARCS has become big business, attracting
the likes of 3M, Xerox and other large corporations. While this creates greater
competition, it also shows that there is opportunity for growth potential in the U.S.
parking market. In Walker's estimation, Skidata and T2 are examples of two
companies poised for growth.
S. Based on anecdotal evidence gleaned from our expertise and experience,
project the revenue potential generated by the overpayment of parking if the City
installs T2 pay stations in the 10 garages:
One of the benefits of prepayments to the City is that people frequently pay for
• more time than they need to insure that they do not overstay their time and
receive a citation. In on-street scenarios it is estimated that 10%to 20%of parking
meter revenue is derived from overpayments.
In a pay-at-exit setting people assume they are only paying for the actual time
they parked, but parking rates are typically set by the hour, meaning that if you
parked for seventy minutes you would pay the same amount as if you parked for
two hours. This is similar to paying for two hours at a parking meter and leaving
after 70 minutes, but because parking meters allow motorists to insert coins and
pay for fractions of an hour, it is deemed an overpayment.
Furthermore, on-street parking has limited hours, and multi-space meters have the
convenience button that typically purchases two or three hours maximum.
Motorists will be far less likely to press the `max' button when the maximum fee is
equivalent to$20.00. Motorists will try to plan their time more realistically.
18
Without question, some people will prepay for parking and have their plans
change,and consequently leave earlier than they had planned;however,Walker
does not have enough data or anecdotal evidence to state with confidence
what the revenue potential is for overpayments. Walker recommends a
conservative projection of 3% (of$16 million), which is equivalent to $480,000 per
year.
T. Opine on which of the two systems is better equipped to distinguish between
residents and non-residents in setting different rate structures.
Walker understands that the City offers parking discounts to residents through its
pay-by-cell vendor, Parkmobile. This is easy to do in a pay-by-plate setting, as
Parkmobile easily integrates with pay-by-plate parking. In a pay-by-plate setting
the license plate serves as a permit, enabling residents to register their license
plates in order to receive a discounted parking rate. The resident will also be able
to receive a discounted parking rate at the pay-by-plate meter once they have
pre-registered their license plate. When the resident enters the plate number at
the meter, the discounted rate would be enabled.
•
As previously stated, pay-by-cell can work in a gated system as well; however a
bar code reader is typically required, as a barcode is displayed on the cellphone
• and scanned to pulse the gate. Note that Skidata's PARCS utilizes barcode tickets
and readers and can therefore support this type of pay-by-cell option.
At least one vendor pay-by-cell vendor (QuickPay) offers a cell phone integration
that involves having the cell phone pulse the gate; however, this requires a
Bluetooth gate kit be installed in the gate box.
Traditionally, pre-paid stored value memory cards ("Smart Cards") are offered to
residents for gated scenarios. The cards are pre-loaded with a dollar value, and
when inserted into a pay-on-foot machine, the parking fee is deducted from the
card. The cards are sold at discounts to residents. Newer versions include software
that recognizes the card and assigns a discounted rate structure to the card -so
the card acts like a validation.
Another option is to replace the smart card with a proximity card. The card would
be preloaded and sold at a discount, and the user would be able to use it at the
entrance and exit, bypassing the pay-on-foot machine and providing faster
ingress and egress to and from the garage.
Another option is offering residents validated parking via a web-based validation
system. Residents would be given password protected access to an online
validation program, where they could print out a unique barcode validation
(discount). .
U. Recommendation:
Walker recommends a gated PARCS in the ten garages for the following reasons:
19
1. While the metered system is less expensive to procure, install and maintain, the
labor required to effectively enforce the garages make the T2 metered system
more expensive to operate by$3.5 million over ten years.
If the City desires a metered setting, Walker recommends contracting with the
City's operator to provide enforcement (and maintenance) services, as the
payroll costs would be significantly lower.
2. Metered revenue projections are $500,000 less than a gated PARCS over ten
years. This is due to the City netting just 33%of enforcement revenue and no
way of verifying ADA driver's licenses.
3. Metered systems do not provide facility count systems. Some of the garages
fill up on a regular basis 'in season', requiring staff to monitor garage
occupancy, and close the garage to transient parkers, in order to `hold' some
parking for monthly parkers. Gates are also required to control (close or open
entry and exit.lanes).
If the City desires a metered system, Walker recommends procuring a gated
count system, which would add significant cost to the project. We typically
recommend maintaining existing count systems and gates; however, the
existing PARCS is no longer being manufactured and support is being phased
out.
Note that mobile LPR provides car counts as enforcement is conducted;
however, the counts will only be conducted on an hourly basis, compared to
a count system that counts vehicles as they enter and exit the facility (in real
time).
4. The gated PARCS provides a higher level of customer service than a metered
system:
• • As the City knows from implementing pay-by-plate on-street, there is a
learning curve with motorists needing to enter their license plates at the
meters. In a garage setting, motorists who neglect to note their license
plate number will need to return to their car, which could be farther
away than in an on-street setting.
If the City desires a metered setting, Walker recommends installing
significant signage on all floors and elevators, advising people to note
their license plates for the meter payment. Suggest that motorists take
photos of their license plates, or write their plate numbers down. Walker
also recommends promoting pay-by-cell as a payment tool, thereby
eliminating the need to enter the license plate at the meter.
• Motorists won't want to worry about receiving a citation if their plans
change and/or they are delayed, and they will resent needing to
overpay the meter to avoid this. They also won't enjoy overpaying for
parking if they decide to leave earlier than they planned.
20
If the City selects a metered setting, Walker recommends promoting
pay-by-cell services, thereby enabling motorists to add time remotely
• (Parkmobile will text motorists when their time is about to expire).
Walker further recommends offering pay-by-cell customers the option
of 'stopping' their parking session when they return to their car. This will
prevent overpayments, thereby reducing revenue; however, it will be
very well received by the public and will help the City win acceptance
for metered garages. Walker projected $480,000 in annual
overpayment revenue. Walker estimates that fewer than half of the
patrons will utilize pay-by-cell services (the City's current usage is 20%);
therefore the potential annual cost in revenue is estimated at $240,000.
• Metered systems do not have intercoms for customer assistance. If the
City selects a metered setting, Walker recommends installing intercoms
in all of the garages. This could be done for less than $100,000.
• Meters will not provide change; however, eliminating cash transactions
is a best practice, as credit card transactions are typically faster than
cash transactions, and reducing cash is more efficient for collections
and improves audit control.
If the City selects the gated PARCS, Walker recommends committing fully to pay-
on-foot. Walker understands that the City's staffing recommendations.significantly
reduces the number of cashiers by expanding POFs and implementing centralized
remote monitoring (via intercoms and audio/video) for customer interactions.
Walker recommends eliminating all cashiers, as the ultimate goals of a POF system
are to fully automate transactions and to remove as many transactions from the
exit lanes as possible. When any cashiers are present, some motorists will ignore
the POFs and utilize the cashiers.
We understand that a human presence will still be required and desired; however,
an attendant who is free to walk around and assist customers at the POFs and/or
the exit lanes can be more effective than a cashier sitting in a cashier booth.
This may also result in further reductions in labor costs, as well as increased audit
control and operational efficiencies (no fee computers, cashier reports or cashier
drawers).
Please let me know if you have any questions, or when you'd like to discuss. Thank you.
Sincerely,
WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS •
(DC4-•-•
Dan Kupferman, CAPP
Director of Car Park Management Systems
21
ATTACHMENT 6
After Action September 30,2015 Budget Related Commission City of Miami Beach
R7G Canvassing Board Membership Appointments For City's November 3, 2015 General, Special (And If
Needed, November 17, 2015 Runoff) Elections.
(Office of the City Attorney)
ACTION: Appointment made. Motion made by Commissioner Malakoff; seconded by Vice-Mayor
Tobin. Voice vote: 6-0; Absent: Mayor Levine. Office of the City Clerk to handle.
Raul J. Aguila, City Attorney, stated that the action required is for the Mayor to appoint a substitute
Canvasing Board Member, since the Mayor, who would normally be the third member is running in
the elections. A City Commissioner can be appointed, so long as he or she is not actively
participating in the elections, but in his opinion, he believes that all of the City Commissioners are in
some way or another participating in the elections.
Vice-Mayor Tobin asked if Judge Lopez could be a candidate.
Mr. Aguila replied that in the case of a City Commissioner not being able to serve, the Chief Judge of
the Circuit Court will appoint a member. The recommendation is to go with the same member who
served in 2013, Mr. Jimmy McMillion.
7:40:35 p.m.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL 2: Resolution &Draft Agreement
R7H A Resolution Accepting The Recommendation Of The Finance And Citywide Projects
Commission Committee; And Approving And Authorizing The Mayor And City Clerk To Execute
An Agreement, Substantially In The Form Attached To This Resolution, Between The City And
Skidata, Inc., Pursuant To Invitation To Negotiate (ITN) 2014-170-SW, For A Gated Revenue
Control System For The City's Parking Garages, For An Initial Term Of Ten (10) Years, With Two
(2) Five (5) Year Options, At The City's Sole Discretion.
(Procurement/Parking)
(Deferred from September 2, 2015- R7K)
ACTION: Resolution No. 2015-29149 adopted. Motion made by Commissioner Weithorn;
seconded by Commissioner Malakoff. Voice vote: 4-2; Opposed: Commissioners Grieco and
Wolfson; Absent: Mayor Levine. Saul Frances to handle.
Saul Frances, Parking Department Director, introduced the item and explained that when this item
was last discussed, the City Commission gave direction for three things: 1. Return with an
agreement with Skidata; 2. As a component of the agreement, address the obsolescence issue with
the equipment as they have this issue with the existing provider; 3. Engage Walker Parking to
perform analysis of metered vs. gated parking. He went into further detail regarding the
obsolescence issue. Skidata has agreed to provide a performance bond in the amount of the
equipment, if there were initial obsolescence, the equipment will be replaced. There is a straight line •
of depreciation for the equipment; as it depreciates, the performance run would be for that amount
for the ten-year period. The City has agreed to pay the initial $12,500. There is an estimated cost of
$25,000 per year, which is a good insurance to have.
Vice-Mayor Tobin asked how much the Walker Parking analysis cost.
Mr. Frances replied that it cost $21,000 including travel expenses.
Vice-Mayor Tobin commended Mr. Frances for his work on the agreement.
F:\CLER\CITYCLER\AFTERACT\2015\09302015 2nd BH\After Action 2nd Budget Meeting.Docx Page 26