R7H-Execute Agreement Gated Revenue Control System For The Citys Parking GarageCOMMISSION IIEM 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, lnc., pursuant
to lnvitation to Negotiate (lTN) 2014-170-SW, for a Gated Revenue Control System forthe City's
Parking Garages, for an initial term of ten (10) years, with two (2) five (5) year options, atthe
Citv's sole discretion.
lntended Outcome Su
Ensure expenditure trends are sustainable over the long term.
Supporting Data (Surveys, EnvironmentalScan, etc.): N/A
June 10,2015, the Mayor and Commission referred ltem No. R7M, lnvitation to Negotiate
ITN) No. 2014-170-SW for a gated revenue control system for the City's Parking Garages to the
inance and Citywide Projects Committee (FCWPC) for discussion.
July 1 , 2015, the FCWPC discussed the item and approved gated revenue control as the
by which to operate municipal parking garages. Additionally, the FCWPC endorsed the
tendation of the City Manager, pursuant to ITN 2014-170-SW for a gated revenue control
for the City's parking garages to Skidata, lnc.
July 8, 2015, the Mayor and Commission authorized the Administration to finalize negotiations
Skidata, lnc. pursuant to invitation to negotiate (lTN) 2014-170-SW for a Gated Revenue
System for the City's Parking Garages and bring the Agreement to the City Commission
September 2,2015, for ratification. ln addition, the Administration was directed to engage
lker Parking Consultants and have them perform an analysis analyze and recommend revenue
systems for the City's parking garages, including but not limited to gated, metered, or
ive technologies deployed in industry today. Walker recommends a gated system in the
s ten garages and their analysis is attached. Also, the proposed Agreement between the City
Skidata is attached. Administration Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Financial lnformation :
Source of
Funds:
Amount Account
1 $303,000 142-6176-000674
2 362,000 463-6176-000674
3 471,OOO 467-6176-000674
4 2,696,000 480-6176-000674
5 400,000 480-0463-000349
OBPI Total $4,232,000
Financial lmoact Summarv:
Saul Frances
2014-170 Revenue
MIAMIBEACH AGENoA ien R1H
D^tE ?4o - l5935
1915.2015
the City
Cityof Miomi Beoch, l700ConventionCenterDrive,Miomi Beoch,Florido33,l39,www.miomibeochfl.gov
COMMISSI N MEMORANDUM
MIAMIBEACH
TO:
FROM
Mayor Philip Levine and Members
Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
DATE: September 30, 2015
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MA AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
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 (tTN) 2014-170-SW, FOR A GATED REVENUE
CONTROL SYSTEM FOR THE CITY'S PARKING GARAGES, FOR AN
rNrTrAL TERM OF TEN (10) YEARS, WrrH TWO (2) FIVE (5) YEAR
OPTIONS, AT THE CITY'S SOLE DISCRETION.
BACKGROUND
On June 10,2015, the Mayor and Commission referred ltem No. R7M, lnvitation to
Negotiate (lTN) 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. The item was referred to the FCWPC seeking guidance on whetherto
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, lnc. pursuant to invitation to negotiate (lTN) 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.
936
September 30, 2015 City Commission Memo
ITN 2014-170-SW Gated Revenue ControlSysfem for Municipal Garages
Page2of11
ANALYSIS
The following are the results of each of the two directives issued by the City
Commission.
Citv of Miami Beach & Skidata Aqreement
The Agreement between the City and Skidata, lnc. is attached. All goods and
services are consistentwith the Term Sheet, pursuantto the July 8,2015, City
Commission Agenda ltem 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
!n consideration of the Fee to be paid to Consultant by the City, Consultant shall
provide the Citywith the equipment, work, and services necessaryfor a state of the
art gated parking revenue controlsystem including realtime 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 lndex).
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.
937
September 30, 2015 City Commission Memo
ITN 2014-170-SW Gated Revenue ControlSysfem for Municipal Garages
Page3of11
Fees:
Consultant shall be paid its fee in connection with the Services being performed for
each garage during the following stages of performance:
. Phase l: 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 ll 20o/o within thirty (30) days from completion of Phase l, 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;o Phase lll: 20% within ninety (90) days from the completion of Phase l, 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; ando The Maintenance costs for each garage shall be paid, commencing as of
Phase ll 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 50o/o 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 pafuing 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
cosfs typically increase as the equipmenf ages.
Obso/escence 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
938
September 30, 2015 City Commission Memo
ITN 2014-170-SW Gated Revenue ControlSysfem for Municipal Garages
Page4of11
United Sfafes alone. Gated PARCS have been in existence for almost as
long, and although there is a tot of tatk about gafes "going away" due to cett
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 Walkerdoes
not know why or what happened intemally, we view it as an anomaly rather
than a sign of things to come. PARCS has become big busrness, attracting
the likes of 3M, Xerox and other large corporations. While this creates
greater competition, it also shouzs that there is opportunity for growth
potential in the U.S. parking market. ln 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 Pefformance Bond in the penalsums stated
below for the payment of which Consultant shall bind itself for the faithful
performance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. A Perfonnance Bond, in
the amount of Three Million One Hundred Thousand ($3,100,000.00) Dollars
("Security"), shall be provided by the Consultant in faithful obseruance of this
Agreement for the first year of the Agreement. Thereafter, upon each renewal of the
Secuity, the total amount of the Security shall be reduced by ten percent (10%d per
year, i.e. the amount bf tne Security foi tne second year of lhe Agreement shalt be
no /ess than $2,790,000.00.
A cash deposit, irrevocable letter of credit, or ceftificate 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
Pertormance Bond or altemate security shall be approved by the City's Chief
Financial Officer. ln the event that a Cerlificate 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 /ess 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 Pefformance
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 Pertormance Bond or alternate security
/apses or otherwise expires. All interest that accrues in connection with any financial
instrument or sum of money referenced above shall be the propefty 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.
939
September 30, 2015 City Commission Memo
ITN 2014-170-SW Gated Revenue ControlSystem for Municipal Garages
Page 5 of 11
Performance Standards :
This section defines requirements for minimum performance levels forWarranty 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 lnsurance 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 belowfor 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 shallbe 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 (SYo) A percentage of ninety
940
September 30, 2015 City Commission Memo
ITN 2014-170-SW Gated Revenue ControlSysfem for Municipal Garages
Page6of11
(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 lnvitation to Negotiate (lTN). 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
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:
941
September 30, 2015 City Commission Memo
ITN 2014-170-SW Gated Revenue ControlSysfem for Municipal Garages
Page 7 of 11
Completion
time of repair
Penalty per
reoair
0 to 4 hours
4 to 6 hours
6 to 24 hours
24 to 36 hours
36 to 48 hours
48 to 72 hours
N/A
$50.00
$100.00
$150.00
$200.00
$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 controlof 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.
Garaqe Revenue Control Analvsis - Walker Parkinq 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 controlsystems 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,
942
September 30, 2015 City Commission Memo
ITN 2014-170-SW Gated Revenue ControlSysfem for Municipal Garages
Page I 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 payfor 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 lmpacts 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.
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 versus installing T2
pay stations.
943
September 30, 2015 City Commission Memo
ITN 2014-170-SW Gated Revenue ControlSysfem for Municipal Garages
Page 9 of 11
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. ls 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 rt 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. ls 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 foryou review. Forease 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. !f 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.
944
September 30, 2015 City Commission Memo
ITN 2014-170-SW Gated Revenue ControlSysfem for Municipal Garages
Page 10 of 11
2.
3.
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.
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 orderto'hold'some
parking for monthly parkers. Gates are also required to control (close or open
entry and exit lanes). lf 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).
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. ln 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. lf the City desires a metered
setting, Walker recommends installing significant signage on allfloors
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.
o 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. lf 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 annualoverpayment
revenue. Walker estimates that fewer than half of the patrons will
4.
945
September 30, 2015 City Commission Memo
ITN 2014-170-SW Gated Revenue ControlSysfem for Municipal Garages
Page 11 of 11
uti I ize pay-by-cel I services (the C ity's cu rrent usage is 20%); therefore
the potential annual cost in revenue is estimated at $240,000.
. Metered systems do not have intercoms for customer assistance. lf
the City selects a metered setting, Walker recommends installing
intercoms in all of the garages. This could be done for less than
$100,000.
o 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. lf the City selects the gated
PARCS, Walker recommends committing fullyto 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, lnc., pursuant to
lnvitation to Negotiate (lTN) 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.
946
EXHIBIT L
CITY COMMISSION
AGENDA ITEM
NO. R7N
JULY 8, 201 5
947
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSTON OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH FLORIDA,
ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER PURSUANT TO INVITATION TO NEGOTIATE
ITN) 2014-17O.SW FOR A GATED REVENUE CONTROL SYSTEM FOR THE CITY'S PARKING GARAGES.
Ensure ex iture trends are over the lonq term.
Su Data Environmental Scan. etc: N/A
TheCity'sParkingDepartmentisseekingastateoftheartgatedparkingrevenu@
centralized processing of data for all of the City's parking garages, a cenbal 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. ln 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 Septem beilI 0, 2014 City Commission meeting, the Mayor and City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2012$-
28720 accepting the recommendation of the City Manager pertaining to the ranking of proposers pursuant to lnvitation
To Negotiate (lTN)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 forthe 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
tle City Manager, pursuant to lnvitation To Negotiate (lTN) 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, lnc-., as setforth
in the term sheet attached as Exhibit "A" hereto; authorizing the City Manager and the City Attorney's ffice 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, lnc., authorizing the City Manager and the City Attorney's Office to negotiate an Agreement with Amano
McGann, lnc. 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
the Resolution.
Source of
Funds:
Amount Account
1 $ 303,000 142-6176-000674
@
2 362,000 463-61 76-000674
3 471,000 467-61 76-000674
1 2,696,000 480-6176{00674
'4.$.v
OBPI
5 400,000 480-0463{00349
Total s4.232.000
Financial lmpact Summary:
Alex Extension 6641
'D
.-
Agenda ttem R7ru
Date ?-8'lSMIAMIBEACH769948
E MIAMIBEACH
City oI Miomi Beoch, 17OO Convention Center Drive, Miomi Beoch, Florido 33139, www.miomibeochfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
Mayor Philip Levine and Members
Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
f the City Cgfnmission
DATE: June 10,2015
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSTON OF THE CtTy OF
MIAMI BEACH' FLORIDA' ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATTON OF'THEclw MANAGER, PURSUANT TO INVITATION TO NEGOTTATE (lTN) 2014-
17O.SW FOR A GATED REVENUE CONTROL SYSTEM FOR Ti{E CITY'S
PARKING GARAGES; APPROVING THE MATERIAL TERMS oF AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND SKIDATA, tNC., AS SET FORTH IN
THE TERM SHEET ATTACHED AS ExHrBrr ..A', HERETO; AUTHoRtztNG
THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFTCE TO FINALIZETHE AGREEMENT BASED UPON THE MATERIAL TERMS APPROVED
HEREIN; PROVIDED THAT THEY MAY MAKE ANY NON.SUBSTANTIVE AND
NON.MATERIAL REVISIONS AND/OR ADDTTIONS TO THE AGREEMENT,As rHEY DEEM NECESSARy; AUTHoRtztNG THE MAyoR AND ctw
CLERK TO EXECUTE THE FINAL AGREEMENT; AND, IN THE EVENT THAT
THE CITY IS UNABLE TO FINALIZE SUCCESSFUL NEGOTTATTONS WITH
SKIDATA, INC., AUTHORIZTNG THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT WITH AMANO
MCGANN, INC. BASED UPON THE MATERIAL TERMS APPROVED tN
EXHIBIT "A" HEREIN (PROVIDED THAT THEY MAY MAKE ANY NON.
SUBSTANTIVE AND NON.MATERIAL REVISIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS TO
THE AGREEMENT).
ADMINISTRATION RECOM MEN DATION
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:
Funding for the annual maintenance costs will be subject to appropriation in the annual budgetprocess.
TO:
FROM:
Amount Account
1 $ 303,000 142-617&|000674
2 362,000 463-617&000674
3 471,000 467-61 76-000674
4 2,696,000 480-61 76-000674
5 400,000 480-046&000349
Total $4,232,000
770949
city commission Memorandum - Parking Garage Gated Revenue controlsystem
June 10,2015
Page2of15
BACKGROUND
The City's Parking System currently has ten (10) municipal parking garages, totaling 6,100
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 stationfor: intercoms, CCTV at all entrance and exit lanes, and access epntrol for all garage
equipment. This would allow for operational savings as well as enhanced audit controls. ln
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 cutrently 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 lnvitation to
Negotiate (lTN) No. 2014-170 for a Parking Garage Gated Revenue Control System. ln
response to the lTN, the City received proposals from the following five (5) firms:
o Amano McGann, lnc.o Consolidated Parking Equipmento Scheidt & Bachmann USA, lnc.o Skidata lnc.. 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 lnvitation To Negotiate (lTN) 2014-170-SW for a Parking
Garage Gated Revenue Control System. Further, the Resotution 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, 2Q14, the Parking and Procurement Departments convened negotiation
session No. 1 with all proposers and attended the meeting with Skidata, tnc., Amano MCGann,
lnc., LCN, lnc. D/B/A Consolidated Parking Equipment, WPS USA Corp., and Scheidt &
Bachmann USA, lnc. 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,
2O14,lo 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.
771950
City Commission Memorandum - Parking Garage Gated Revenue Control Syslem
June 10, 201 5
Page 3 of 15
On Decembet 22, and December 23, 2014, site visits were held and attended by the remaining
four (4) Proposers: Amano McGann, lnc., Scheidt & Bachmann USA, lnc., Skidata, lnc., 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, lnc., Skidata, lnc., and WPS USA
Corp. were received. At this time, Scheidt & Bachmann USA, lnc., notified the City that, due to
schedule conflicts, it had withdrawn its proposal pursuant to the lTN. The following is a brief
summary, from the information provided in each firm' proposals, of the final three (3) proposers:
o Amano McGann, lnc. 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.
r SKIDATA, lnc., 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.
o 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
lniCredit 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.
ANALYS!S
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.
772951
city commission Memorandum - Parking Garage Gated Revenue controlsystem
June 10,2015
Page4ofl5
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 prefened 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:
c Amano McGann, lnc. offers both barcode and magnetic stripe fickef sysfems;
however, both systems cannot be deployed simultaneousty in each garage.o Skidata offers both barcode and magnetic stripe fibkef sysfems which may be
deployed sim ultaneou sly.. 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.
o Both Skidata and Amano have solutions for EMV and committed to providing
their solution at no additionalcosf fo the City. WPS has advised the City that
they are devetoping an EMV solution; however, its avaitabitity and cbsf is
contingent upon various factors. The following is an excerpt from an emait
sent by Mr. Garrett Coleman, Manufacturerb Representative, on March 17,
2015.
"Please understand that there are a number of requirements that companies
like WPS are not responsrb/e for completing. Ihese need to be resolved by
the credit card industry. until these are resolved, it is nof possib/e to state for
sure there will not be any added cosfs uyhen 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 drive/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:
773952
City Commission Memorandum - Parking Garage Gated Revenue Controlsysfem
June 10,2015
Page5of15
. 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.
o 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 ls a brief description of the
Skid ata autom ated sol ution for val id ation s (exception s).
A customer provides their credentials (diabled 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 aftachment (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.
o WPS proffered to develop (and preliminarily tested) a similar functionality
through their license plate recognition (LPR) sysfem. However, their
proposed solution is in the developmental stage.
ln FY 2013114, 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
s u rveyiq u estion na i re:
Amano Reference - Citv of West Palm Beach:r 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.
774953
city commission Memorandum - Parking Garage Gated Revenue control Systern
June 10,2015
Page 6 of 15
. Credit card jams on insertion. Recommends swipe.. No capabality 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).o lntercoms 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 - Citv of Norfolk
Q, Are you satisfied with the audiUaccounting capabilities of the software? Please
explain system capabilities.
A. Not satisfied. Cash does not match shift report. Cash received via Pay-ln-Lane
(PlL) 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.
been issues resulting in delays.
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
( 1 0) year maintenance/support.
*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 initiat 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.
Update was scheduled last year. There have
Update is now scheduled for Spring/Summer
Amano Skidata wPs
Equipment and lnstallation $3.418.950.00 $3,667.412.00 $2.769.205.00
Rebate on Existino Eouioment $(273,100.00)$(32,s00.00)$1 1.470.00
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.s6.793.178.60 $5.259,136.00.
77s954
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 (40yo), 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 composedof 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
attendanUcashier labor cost by 40o/o. ln 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, tnc.; 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 $250,000.
776955
City Commission Memorandum - Parking Garage Gated Revenue Control Sysfem
June 10,2015
Page I of 15
References
Section 2-369 of the City Code requires that, in the award of contracts, the following be
considered:
(1) The ability, capacity and skill of the bidder to perform the contract.
(2) Whether the bidder can perform the contract within the time specified, without delay or
interference.
(3) The character, integrity, reputation, judgment, experience and efficiency of the bidder.
(4) The quality of performance of previous contracts.
(5) The previous and existing compliance by the bidder with laws and ordinances relating to
the contract.
Skidata client references indicate that it has a satisfactory history of past performance. Past
clients of both Amano and WPS expressed some concerns of each firm's respective systems
and response to system issues. Especially concerning is the experience shared by a past client
of WPS in which it stated that the system was unable to accurately record and reconcile cash
balances. This is a very dangerous scenario when one considers the amount of revenue ($lGttt
annually) flowing through the City's gated revenue control system.
Gost
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.
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 equipmenUremote monitoring, including maintenance costs, over a ten year period.
& lnstallation Amano Skidata wPs
Eouioment and lnstallation s3.418.950.00 $3,667,412.00 $2,769,205.00
Rebate for Existing Equipment and/or
Cost of Removino Existino Eouioment ($273.100.00)($32.500.00)$11.470.00
Totallnitial Costs $3,145,850.00 s3.634.912.00 s2.780.675.00
Annual Maintenance Amano Skidata wPs
Total Maintenance Costs Over 10
Years $3.823.237.s2 $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
Percentaoe of Revenue 2.39%1.97o/o 1.55o/o
777956
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; ando Elimination of all Parking Attendant I during off-peak (overnight) hours.o Reduction of Parking Attendant ll during off-peak hours.
Remote monitoring is anticipated to reduce cashier labor hours by 4Oo/o. This is attributed to a
centralized remote monitoring consolidating cashier functions and tasks at one centralized
location. Each workstation is equipped with data acress 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
Equipment Cost
Equipment Maintenance
TOTAL
$2,943,000'
$225,000.
33.168.000
$1,800,000-
$3,635,000
$132,000
$s.567.000
$ (1,143,000)
$3,635,000
$(e3,000)
s2,399,000
YEAR 2
Staffing
Equipment Maintenance
TOTAL
$2,943,000'
$22s,000'
33.168.000
$1,800,000'
$173,000
31.973.000
$ (1,143,000)
$ (52,000)
$ (1.r95.000)
YEAR 3
Staffing
Equipment Maintenance
TOTAL
$2,943,000'
$225,000'
$3.168.000
$1,800,000'
$331,000
t2.131.000
$ (1,143,000)
s106,000
$ (1.037.000)
YEAR 4
Staffing
Equipment Maintenance
TOTAL
$2,943,000'
$225,000'
$3,16E,000
$1,800,000'
$342,000
$2.142,000
$(1,143,000)
$117,000
$(1,026,000)
YEAR 5
Staffing
Equipment Maintenance
TOTAL
$2,943,000'
$225,000'
$3.168.000
$1,800,000.
$3s3,000
32.153.000
$(1,143,000)
$128,000
3(1,015.000)
YEAR 6
Staffing
Equipment Maintenance
TOTAL
$2,943,000'
$22s,000.
33,16E.000
$1,800,000'
$364,000
32.164.000
$ (1,143,000)
$139,000
s (1.0M.000)
YEAR 7
Staffing
Equipment Maintenance
TOTAL
$2,943,000*
$22s,000'
33,168.000
$1,800,000-
$376,000
$2.176.000
$(1,143,000)
$151,000
$(992,000)
YEAR 8
Staffng
Equipment Maintenance
TOTAL
$2,943,000.
$22s,000'
33.168.000
$1,800,000"
$388,000
32.188.000
$(1,1€,000)
$163,000
3(980.000)
YEAR 9
778957
City Commission Memorandum - Pafuing Garage Gated Revenue Contrcl Sysfem
June 10, 2015
Page 10 of 15
'Assumes No lncrease
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, lnc.
The City Manager further recommends that in the event that the City is unable to finalize
successful negotiations with Skidata, lnc., to finalize negotiations on final contract terms with
Amano McGann, lnc.
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 lnvitation To
Negotiate (lTN) 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, lnc., 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, lnc., authorizing the City Manager and the City Attorney's Office to negotiate an
Agreement with Amano McGann, lnc. based upon the material terms approved in Exhibit "A"
herein (provided that they may make any non-substantive and non-material revisions and/or
additioRt to the Agreement).
wn$mvsrio
T:\AGENDA\20'!SUune\PROCUREMENT\ITN 2014-170-SW Parking Garage Gated Revenue Control System for the City of Miami
Beach MEMO (20150526 KGB).doc
$(1,143,000)
$17s,000
YEAR ,lO
Staffing
Equipment Maintenance
$2,943,000'
$225,000.
$1,800,000'
$413,000
$(1,143,000)
$188,000
TOTAL.IO YRS $r
779958
TERM SHEET (EXHIBIT
BRIEF SCOPE OF WORK AMANO SKIDATA WPS
Removal/buy back of existing equipment, new equipment at allgarages, installation, hardware/software, 10 years
maintenance/support.
PROPOSED EQUIPMENT AMANO SKIDATA WPS
Submitted
Electronicallv
Submitted
Electronicallv
Submitted
Electronicallv
NEW EQUIPMENT COST.
INSTALLED AMANO SKIDATA WPS
Equipment
lnstallation
Software lnstallation
Other
2,885,500.00
227,975.00
305,475.00
2,830,004.00
143,7s0.00
331,579.00
362,079.00
2,332,315.00
76,630.00
29,800.00
330,460.00
TOTAL $3.418.9s0.00 s3.667.412.00 $2.769.205.00
Skidata is $248.462 than Amano and 7(7%) higher $898,207 (32o/o) higher than WPS.
MAINTENANC
Skidata is $664,970.92 (170/0) lower than Amano and $679,805.60 (27Yo) higher than WPS.
SUMMARY/GRANDTOT
Over a ten (10) year period, including all maintenance and support, the grand fotal cost of
Skidata is $175,908 .92 (3Yo) lower than Amano and $1,534,042.60 (29Yo) higher than WPS.
REBATE/BUYBACK OF EXISTING EQUIPMENT
EXISTING EQUIPMENT AMANO SKIDATA wPs
Rebate/Buy back for existing
equipment
Cost to remove existing
eouioment
(288,100.00)
15.000.00
(s0,000.00)
17,500.00 11.470.00
TOTAL 3(273.100.00)$(32.s00.00)$11.470.00
E/SUPPORT TEN (10) YEARS
10 YEAR MANTENANCE AMANO SKIDATA WPS
Maintenance - Year 1
Maintenance -Year 2
Maintenance - Year 3
Maintenance - Year 4
Maintenance - Year 5
Maintenance - Year 6
Maintenance -Year 7
Maintenance - Year 8
Maintenance - Year 9
Maintenance - Year 10
206,462.00
299,881.00
325,159.75
350,527.25
375,986.61
401,543.04
427,142.87
452,948.55
478,808.63
504,777.81
122,192.10
163,241.70
320,446.30
330,844.20
341,553.70
352,583.40
363,944.50
375,646.40
387,699.70
400,114.60
138,420.00
205,900.00
218,254.00
229,985.00
248,384.00
270,698.00
276,107.00
284,391.00
295,767.00
310.555.00
TOTAL $3,823.237.52 $3.158.266.60 s2.478.461.00
AL OF ALL COSTS - TEN 10) YEARS:
AMANO SKIDATA wPs
Equipment Cost
Additional I nstallation Cost
Software Cost
Existing Equipment
Maintenance Cost - 10 YEARS
Other
2,885,s00.00
227,975.00
(273,100.00)
3,823,237.52
305,475.00
2,830,004.00
'143,750.00
331,579.00
(32,500.00)
3,158,266.60
362.079.00
2,332,315.00
76,630.00
29,800.00
11,470.00
2,478,461.00
330,460.00
TOTAL $6.969.087.s2 $6,793,178.60 $5.259.136.00
780959
City Commission Memorandum - Parking Garage Gated Revenue Control Sysfem
June 10,2015
Page 12 of 1 5
GATED REVENUE CONTROL SYSTEMS v. METERED OPERATIONS
ALTERNATIVE OPTION ANALYSIS
(EXHTBIT 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 altemative 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 gamers 100o/o 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 85o/o, meaning 8.5 of 10
users pay for their parking. Therefore, 15o/o ($2.+tvl of $16M) in garage revenues
would stand to be lost, if operated with meters.o ln order to achieve the 85% compliance level 2417 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 Forthe 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 113 of citation revenue, as well as contributions to school
crossing guards and technology (Autocite) fund.
o 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.
o Diminished revenues related to potential disabled placard abuse. ldentity of placard
owner is not verified in metered facilities but is verified in statfed/gated garages.
ln 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 40o/o 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 cosurevenue effective.
Additiona! detail is provided in the analysis below, including increased capital expenses
and other recurring operational expenses incuned with metered operations as
compared to gated revenue control systems.
78L960
City Commission Memorandum - Parking Garage Gated Revenue Controt System
June 10,2015
Page 13 of 15
GATED REVENUE CONTROL SYSTEMS . METER COMPARISON
Equipment
Staffing
Maintenance
$3,635,000
$1,800,000
$123,000
$0
$1,800,000
$164,000
$0
$1,800,000
$321,000
$3,63s,000
$5,400,000
$608,000
TOTAL:$5,558,000 $1,964,000 $2,121,000 $9,643,000
137 METERS
Staffing
License Plate Recognition
Vehicles
Maintenance
Meter Collections
$1,027,s00
$2,818,400
$767,3s0
$43,200
$220,000
$2,874,768
$0
$43,200
$220,000
$1,027,s00
$2,932,263 $8,625,431
$0 s767,350
$43,200 $129,600
$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 cosUrevenue effective. Technology enhancements and remote monitoring
available with the new gated revenue control system result in a reduction of labor hours/costs of
approximately 40o/o 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/benefiUpension).
782961
City Commission Memorandum - Pafuing Garage Gated Revenue Control System
June 10,2015
Page 14 of 1 5
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.
* After negotiation discussions with each Proposer to understand the cost proposals, staff requested
revised Cost Proposals which were received on March 12,2015.
proposals equipment
Original Cost Proposal After Site
Visits - Received February 6, 2015 AMANO SKIDATA wPs
Equipment Cost
Additional I nstallation Cost
Software Cost
Equipment Removal and Rebate
Maintenance Cost
Other
$2,883,500.00
$0.00
$227,975.00
-$213,100.00
$3,252,260.00
$655.500.00
$2,906,329.00
$143,750.00
$331,579.00
$17,500.00
$3,518,161,00
s257.102.00
$2,370,745.00
$76,630.00
s29,800.00
$11,470.00
$2,390,041.00
s476.704.00
PRELIMINARY TOTAL $6.806.135.00'$7,174.421.00',$5.355,390.00*
Revised Cost Proposal- Received
March 12.2015 AMANO SKIDATA WPS
Equipment Cost
Additional lnstallation Cost
Software Cost
Equipment Removal and Rebate
Maintenance Cost
Other
$2,883,500.00
$0.00
$227,975.00
-$273,100.00
$3,002,040.00
$699,900.00
$2,906,329.00
$143,750.00
$331,579.00
-$32,500.00
$3,280,512.00
s217.102.00
$2,332,315.00
$76,630.00
$29,800.00
$1 1,470.00
$2,478,461.00
$444.070.00
TOTAL $6.540.315.00 s6.846.772.00 35.372.746.00
* Staff determined that the revised cost orooosals contained errors and omissions or
not requested by the City as follows.
Errorc and Omissions AMANO SKIDATA wPs
Corrections for Mathematical Errors
on Cost Prooosal -$346.975.00
Reduction for Supplemental ltems
(Table 1)-$45.450.00
Add Cost of Dedicated Employee
Omifted from Amano's Cost Proposal $821,197.52
Corrections for Mathematical Errors
on Cost Prooosal $72.743.56
Reduction for Supplemental ltems
(Table 1)-$126.337.00
Corrections for Mathematical Enors
on Cost Proposal s28.200.00
Reduction for Supplemental ltems
(Table 1)-$141,810.00
TOTAL $428,772.52 -$53.590.44 -s1{3.610.00
783962
City Commission Memorandum - Parking Garage Gated Revenue Contrcl System
June 10,2015
Page 15 of 15
Final Adjustments Confirmed by
Prooosers AMANO SKIDATA WPS
Date Conflrmed by Proposer
Equipment Cost
Additional lnstallation Cost
Software Cost
Equipment Removal and Rebate
Maintenance Cost
*Other
4t23t2015
$2,885,500.00
$0.00
$227,975.00
-$273,100.00
$3,823,237.52
$305.475.00
51'.t912015
$2,830,004.00
$143,750.00
$331,579.00
-$32,s00.00
$3,158,266.60
$362.079.00
3119t2015
$2,332,315.00
$76,630.00
$29,800.00
$11,470.00
$2,478,461.00
$330.460.00
FINAL TOTAL 36.969.087.52 36.793.178.60 s5.259.{36.00
Items not necessary for imptementation/operation of system but available to the City in the future on
AMANO
G7 Bollards ($150 x 8 = $1,200)
G8 Bollards ($150 x 1 - $150)
G10 Bollards ($150 x 2 = $300)
Booth Removal (per booth)
Online Validation Software (eParcVal)
Daily pass online software (eFlexPass)
Bulk Validation Software (eFlexPrint)
Pedestrian Warning System (per system)($SO0 x 10 garages)
$1,200.00
$150,00
$300.00
$2,000.00
$4,000.00
$10,000.00
$6,000.00
$5,000.00
TOTAL
SKIDATA
WEBKey Managed System (annualfee year 1)
WEBKey Managed System (annualfee maintenance years 2-10)
Pedestrian Alert signage (Per Garagex$1,349 x 10 garages)
$9,500.00
$98,617.00
$13,490.00
TOTAL .00
WPS
Pedestrian warning light & buzzer at each exit
Printed graphic static signage: Budget
Additional protective bollard if required: (Each)
Electronic locks for accessing equipment housings (Lump sum)
Booth Removal: Not to exceed $3,000.00 per booth Budget
Level Counting, Exterior Monument Sign: (Budget Each)
Floor Space Available Sign: (Budget Each)
Ramp counter for level counting using camera detection: (Each)
LPR Cameras, housing, and installation: (Each)
LPR site infrastructure where possible per lane:
$8,160.00
$20,000.00
$450.00
$85,000.00
$3,000.00
$9,500.00
$2,800.00
$4,500.00
$3,400.00
TOTAL $141,810.00
784963
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMiiISSION OF THE CITY OF
iIIAM! BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMilIENDATION OF THEctw MANAGER, PURSUANT TO INV|TATION TO NEGOTIATE (tTN) 2014-
170€W FOR A GATED REVENUE CONTROL SYSTEM FOR THE CITY'S
PARKING GARAGES; APPROVING THE ilIATERIAL TERMS OF AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GITY AND SKIDATA, INC., AS SET FORTH IN
THE TERM SHEET ATTACHED AS EXHTBIT "A" HERETO; AUTHORTZTNG
THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO FINALIZE
THE AGREETIiENT BASED UPON THE IIATERTAL TERi'IS APPROVED
HEREIN; PROVIDED THAT THEY MAY iIAKE ANY NON€UBSTANTIVE AND
NON-TIATERIAL REVISIONS ANO'OR ADDITIONS TO THE AGREEMENT,
AS THEY DEEilI NECESSARY; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY
CLERK TO EXECUTE THE FINAL AGREEMENT; AND, tN THE EVENT THAT
THE CITY IS UNABLE TO FINALIZE SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATIONS WTH
SKIDATA, INC., AUTHORIZING THE CITY IIANAGER AND THE CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO NEGOTIATE AN AGREENiENT WITH ATUANO
MCGANN, INC. BASED UPON THE MATERIAL TERMS APPROVED IN
EXHIBIT "A" HERETN (PROV|DED THAT THEY MAy tUtAKE ANy NON-
SUBSTANTIVE AND NON.TUIATERIAL REVISIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS TO
THE AGREEMENT).
WHEREAS, on May 21,2014, the Mayor and City Commission authorized the issuance
of lnvitation to Negotiate (lTN) 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 controlfor all garage equipment; and
WHEREAS, on May 22, 2014,lTN 2014-17G.SW was issued with an opening date of
July 10, 2014; and
WHEREAS, on September 10, 2014, the Mayor and City Gommission 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 lnc.; Amano
McGann, lnc.; LCN, lnc. d/b/a Consolidated Parking Equipment; WPS USA Corp.; and Scheidt
& Bachmann USA, lnc.;and
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2014, the City was notffied by Consolidated Parking
Equipment that it had withdrawn its proposal pursuant to the ITN; and
WHEREAS, on February 6, 2015, Scheidt & Bachmann USA, lnc. notified the City that it
had withdrawn its proposal pursuant to the ITN; and
WHEREAS, staff held several negotiation sessions with alt 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.
745964
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COilIMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, accept the recommendation of the
City Manager, pursuant to lnvitation To Negotiate (lTN) 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, lnc., as set forth in the term sheet attached as Exhibit "A" hereto;
author2ing 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 succ.essful negotiations with Skidata, lnc., authorizing the City Manager
and the City Attorney's ffice to negotiate an Agreement with Amano McGann, lnc. 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:\AGENOA\201SUune\PROCUREMENTUTN 201+170-SW Parking Garage cated Revenue Control System for the City of Miami Beach RESO.doc
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
786965
TERM SHEET {!Bt
BRIEF SCOPE OF WORK AMANO SKIDATA WPS
Removal/buy back of existing equipment, new equipment at allgarages, installation, hardware/software, 10 years
maintenance/suooort.
PROPOSED EQUIPMENT AMANO SKIDATA wPs
Submitted
Electronicallv
Submitted
Electronicallv
Submitted
Electronicallv
NEW EQUIPMENT COST.
INSTALLED AMANO SKIDATA WPS
Equipment
lnstallation
Software lnstallation
Other
2,885,500.00
227,975.00
305.475.00
2,830,004.00
143,750.00
331,579.00
362.079.00
2,332,315.00
76,630.00
29,800.00
330.460.00
TOTAL $3,418.950.00 $3.667.412.00 $2.769.20s.00
Skidata is $248,462 (7%) higher than Amano and $898,207 (32o/o\ higher than WPS.higher (32o/o) higher
REBATE/BUYBACK OF EXISTING EQUIPMENT
MAINTENANCE/SU
Skidata is $664,970.92 (17Y0) lower than Amano and $679,805.60 (27o/o) higher than WPS.
Over a ten (10) year period, including all maintenance and support, the grand total cost of
Skidata is $175,908 .92 (3o/o\ lower than Amano and $1 ,534,042.60 (29o/o) higher than WPS.
T:\AGENDA\2015Uune\PROCUREMENnITN 2014-170-SW Parking Garage Gated Revenue Control System for the City of Miami Beach MEMO
(20150526 KGB).doc
EXISTING EOUIPIT/IENT AMANO SKIDATA wPs
Rebate/Buy back for existing
equipment
Cost to remove existing
eouioment
(288,100.00)
15,000.00
(50,000.00)
17,500.00 11.470.00
TOTAL s(273.100.00)$(32.500.00)t11.470.00
PPORT TEN (10} YEARS
1O YEAR MAINTENANCE AMANO SKIDATA wPs
Maintenance - Year 1
Maintenance - Year 2
Maintenance - Year 3
Maintenance -Year 4
Maintenance - Year 5
Maintenance - Year 6
Maintenance -Year 7
Maintenance - Year 8
Maintenance - Year 9
Maintenance - Year 10
206,462.00
299,881.00
325,159.75
350,527.25
375,986.61
401,543.04
427,142.87
452,948.55
478,808.63
504.777.81
122,192.10
163,241.70
320,446.30
330,844.20
341,553.70
352,583.40
363,944.50
375,&16.40
387,699.70
400,114.60
138,420.00
205,900.00
218,254.0O
229,985.00
248,384.00
270,698.00
276,107.00
284,391.00
295,767.00
310.555.00
TOTAL s3.823.237.52 s3.158.266.60 s2,478,461.00
SUMMARY/GRANDTOTAL OF ALL COSTS - TEN 10) YEARS:
AMANO SKIDATA WPS
Equipment Cost
Additional lnstallation Cost
Software Cost
Existing Equipment
Maintenance Cost - 10 YEARS
Other
2,885,500.00
227,975.00
(273,100.00)
3,823.237.52
305,475.00
2,830,004.00
143,750.00
331,s79.00
(32,s00.00)
3,1s8,266.60
362.079.00
2,332,315.00
76,630.00
29,800.00
11,470.00
2,478,461.00
330.460.00
TOTAL s6.96S.087.52 $6.793.178.60 $5.259.136.00
787966
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
788967
EXHIBIT 2
WALKER PARKING
CONSULTANTS
REPORT
GATED V. METERED
968
WALI(EF
PTI(ING iCNSLTIANIS
20 Pork Plozo, Suite 1202
Boston. MA 021 I6
Office: 617.350.5040
www.wolkerporkin g.com
August 10, 20.l5
Mr. Soul Fronces
City of Miomi Beoch, Porking Deportment
1755 Meridion Avenue, Suite 200
Miomi Beoch, FL 33,l39
Re: Porking Revenue ControlSystem Finonciol ond Operotionol Anolysis
Deor Mr. Fronces:
The City of Miomi Beoch (the City) osked Wolker Porking Consultonts (Wolker) to
compore (ond controst) goted ond ungoted revenue control systems for controlling
porking in the City's ten porking goroges. The City hod conducted on lnvitotion to
Negotiote (lTN) for o goied porking occess ond revenue control system (PARCS), ond
provided o comporotive onolysis of the proposols ond finol pricing thot wos negotioted.
We were osked to compore the costs, revenu,e ond operoting expenses ossocioted wiih
the goted systems proposed by Amono McGonn ond Skidoto (in response to the City's
request for proposols), with on ungoted, poy-by-plote multi-spoce meter system thot
would be provided by T2 systems (the City's multi-spoce meter vendor), ond to opine on
the differences.
Wolker reviewed the relevont documents provided b!' ihe City, met with the relevont
stoff members ond toured the City's ten porking goroges to ossess potentiol meter
quontities, locotions ond enforcement. Following ore Wolker's findings ond
recommendotions, per the controcted Scope of Services:
A. Commenl on the most common goroge revenue control systems ond best
proctices (bosed on Wolker's experience ond projecl dotobose):
Goted PARCS ore by for the most common type of revenue control system for
porking goroges. Wolker estimotes thot more thon g0% of oll poid porking goroge
systems in the U.S. ore goted. There ore mony odvontoges ond disodvontoges of
eoch type of system; however, the two primory reosons thot goted systems ore
preferred is 'copture rote' ond public relotions.
Goted systems ore designed to 'copture' poyments from oll the cors thot enter
the goroge, os cors would need to physicolly drive through o gote to exit without
poying. Metered lots rely on the honor system ond/or enforcement. Good ond
honest people thot would never steol from o store (or drive through o porking
gote) often think nothing of 'steoling' porking by not poying of o porking meter.
969
Enforcement needs to be on every street on on hourly bosis (or more frequently)
in order to 'copture' ollviolotors, which is often perceived os cost-prohibitive.
To moke motters worse, when people get 'cought' ond receive citotions,
enforcement is often viewed os 'punitive' ond considered unfoir. Note thot
citotions, by their very noture, ore punitive, which often leods to poor public
relotions. Enforcement is often thought of os the enemy (hiding behind o iree
woiting to pounce). Consider the nome of the successful reolity show obout on-
street porking meter enforcement: "Pqrking Wors".
Furthermore, there is o certoin omount of onxiety ossocioted with pre-poying for
porking of o porking meter. The motorist needs to occurotely predict how long
they will be porking, ond if they're wrong, they risk receiving thot punitive citotion.
Motorists moy elect to 'overpoy' for porking to ovoid o ticket, but this con leod to
resentment (no-one likes to overpoy for goods or services). Note thot the City hos
implemented o poy-by-cell phone option thot notifies motorists when time is
expiring; ond enobles motorists to odd time remotely.
Another reoson goted focilities ore so predominont is becouse conventionol
porking meters ore extremely limited in functions, feotures ond oudit control. New
meter technologies hove oddressed most of these issues; however these
technologies ore still perceived os relotively new. Conventionol porking meters
ore still controlling the mojority of metered spoces throughout the country. Most
municipoliiies seem to go with the stotus quo, either for finonciol or politicol
reosons, lock of oworeness, ond/or becouse the public is generolly resistont to
chonge.
Most system upgrodes remoin os they were (either goted or ungoted). Goted
goroges reploce coshiers with poy-on-foot stotions, ond ungoted goroges
reploce single-spoce meters with multi-spoce meters.
The City of Miomi Beoch hos olreody proven to be forword thinking in this regord,
hoving olreody implemented poy-by-plote multi-spoce meters on-street ond in its
surfoce lots, POF stotions in iis goroges, ond by considering meters for the goroges.
Multi-spoce meters (MSMs) ore consistent with severol best proctices in on-street
porking:
. MSMs provide more woys to poy (credit cords ond/or bills).. They dromoticolly improve oudit control.. They provide voluoble stotisticol doto for plonning purposes.
Goted poy-on-foot (POF) systems ore olso consistent with those best proctices,
ond both systems olso keep troffic moving of the exits ond reduce or eliminote the
need for coshiers in o goroge (best proctices).
Following is o list of comporotive odvontoges, disodvontoges ond differences
between goted POF ond ungoted metered goroge systems:
970
3.
l. As previously stoted, goted systems copture o higher percentoge of poid
porking tronsoctions. Metered systems rely on the honor system ond
enforcement.
2. Goted porking systems offer o higher level of customer service
o) Goted equipment includes intercoms for customer ossistonce (meters do
not).
b) Goted equipment provides chonge for cosh tronsoctions (meters do not).
c) As previously stoted, motorists don't need to worry obout receiving o
citotion if their plons chonge ond they ore deloyed, or overpoying for
porking if they decide to leove eorlier thon they plonned.
Goted systems ore more expensive to purchose, instoll, mointoin ond operote
thon metered systems. There is for more equipment required for o goted
system, os oll entry ond exit lones need to be controlled. There ore for more
moving porls, requiring more mointenonce ond repoir thon metered systems.
lnstollotion requires equipment islonds, power ond communicotion
infrostructure, ond plonning for vehiculor queuing of both the entronces ond
exit lones os cors will need to woit for the entry or exit tronsoction to be
conducted. This con reduce the porking supply.
Throughput of entry ond exit lones is foster in o goteless (metered) scenorio, os
vehicles ore not required to stop of the entronce or exit to occess the gote. ln
the event of o moss entronce or exit (event porking), the tronsoction times ot
the gotes con couse bock-ups, reducing customer service levels. Poy-on-foot
stotions remove the poyment process from ihe exit lone, expediting the exit
process, but bock-ups con still occur os people locote the porking ticket ond
insert it into the exit verifier. Unfortunotely, one cor struggling of the exit verifier
couses o ripple effect of deloys during moss exits.
Poy-on-foot (or poy-in-lone) goted systems enoble the system to run without o
stoff presence. There will still be the need for humon intervention when o
motorist loses or domoges their porking ticket, is unoble or unwilling to poy the
required fee, or if the sysiem molfunctions; however, on intercom system is
utilized to ollow motorists io communicote with stoff remotely. ldeolly stoff will
be close enough to respond in person, but it's olso possible to roise thb gote
remotely if stoff is unoble to respond in person.
Metered systems do not require o stoff presence either. ond require even less
customer ossistonce, os there ore no tickets or gotes involved (hence on
intercoms instolled in meters). Note thot in comporing stoffing needs, the
ongoing cost to enforce on ungoted system is significont, ond con eventuolly
surposs the purchose ond instollotion cost of o goted system, depending on
stoffing levels, mointenonce ond service controcts.
Goted sysiems occommodote monthly porkers vio cord occess, outomotic
vehicle identificotion or license plote recognition technology. Poy-by-plote
metered systems use the license plote os the monthly credentiol.
Goted systems come with focility count systems, enobling the owner to know
goroge occuponcy ond plon occordingly for monthly porkers or other pre-
poid/reserved porking. Metered systems do not include count systems.
Goted systems ore typicolly posi-poy, ollowing for on eosy volidoted porking
process, including on-line volidotion systems. Metered systems ore pre-poy,
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
971
B.
moking the volidotion process more chollenging. The motorist needs to
receive the volidotion in odvonce..l0. Metered systems connot verify driver licenses for Americon with Disobility Act
(ADA) eligibility. The Ciiy's POF system coptures o photogrophic imoge.
I l. Goted systems reduce the incidence of stolen vehicles, os the entry ticket
needs to be processed io exit the goroge. While not foolproof, ii is o
disincentive.
Revenue control systems for porking goroges deployed in public ond privole
systems within lhe lost two yeors:
Wolker hos been involved in forty-five goroge revenue control projects in the post
two yeors. Forty-two involved goted PARCS ond three involved meters. The
following three projects involved the instollotion of multi-spoce porking meters:
. Stomford Town Center, o privote shopping moll in Connecticut, is in the
process of upgroding from conventionol porking meters to poy-by-spoce
multi-spoce meters. Monogement wos concerned obout queuing issues if
they instolled o goted system. Pre-existing meter poles ore being used to
instoll spoce number signs. The moll hos o pre-existing orrongement
whereby the City of Stomford conducts enforcement for o portion of the
citotion revenue.. Union Stotion, o tronsit center in Springfield, MA, is building o goroge thot
will utilize poy-by-spoce multi-spoce meiers. Poy-by-spoce meters were
chosen due to lower copitol costs, concerns obout bock-ups of the exit
ond becouse the City of Springfield hos o pre-existing enforcement
deporiment. Tronsit center goroges typicolly hove moss exits when troins
orrive; therefore, o goteless system is viewed os more efficient ond user-
friendly in regord to exiting troffic.. The Government of Alberto, Conodo, is building o goroge in Edmonton
thot will utilize gotes for monthly porkers but poy-by-spoce multi-spoce
meters for tronsient porking. Monogement felt o goteless system for
tronsient porkers would be eosier to monoge.
This is remorkobly consistent with the City's survey, os93% of our PARCS goroge
projects involved goted systems, ondg3% of the l2l goroges surveyed by Miomi
Beoch were goted. While oll three of these meter projects involve poy-by-spoce,
Wolker hos been involved in severol poy-by-plote projects for on-street systems.
It should be noted thot Wolker hos olso worked on severol projects involving single-
spoce smort meters; however they were olso for on-street systems. This study will
focus on poy-by-plote multi-spoce meters, os the City currently employs this
technology on-street, which is why it is being considering it in the l0 goroges.
Cost of equipmenl - octuol cost comporison of goled revenue contro! systems like
Skidoto ond Amono vs. poy stotions like T2, onolyzed over o ten yeor period,
including service controcts:
As stoted previously, goted systems ore significontly more expensive to purchose
thon ungoted (metered) systems. This is porticulorly true for the City's ten porking
c.
972
goroges. A goted system replocement will exceed $3 million, compored with $1.8
million for o goteless metered system.
Wolker estimotes o totol of 95 cosh ond credit cord multi-spoce meters will be
required for o goteless metered system, of o cost of $7,200 per meter, or $231,500.
This ossumes locoting the meters in groupings, on the ground floor (or other floors
thot connect to significont ingress or egress from the focility). Considerotion wos
given to locoting meters on individuol floors; however, motorists typicolly pork on
the lowest ovoiloble floor, so thot demond would be 'floor by floor'. This could
couse lines of the meters. Locoting them oll on the ground floor (or other floors
thot connect to significont ingress or egress from the focility) will enoble fewer totol
meters to serve more motorists.
This olso eliminotes the incidence of someone moking o meter poyment in on
isoloted oreo on on upper floor of o goroge, which could be o sofety/security
concern, ond it reduces the potentiol of o motorist wolking up to on isoloted meter
ond finding it out of service ond needing to locote onother meter. lt is olso more
efficient for mointenonce ond collections.
Meter Quontiiies Gor
Noie thot four units ore designoted os spores, to be determined ofter reviewing
meter poyment potterns, in the event thot o goroge or goroges ore underserved.
One of the chollenges with poy-by-plote meters is the leorning curye for people
who don't know their license ploie number. lf the meters were locoted on oll floors
(ot the elevotors), people would hove o shorter trip bock to their cors (to retrieve
the license plote number). Wolker recommends instolling significont signoge on
oll floors ond elevotors, odvising people to note their license plotes for the meter
poyment. Wolker olso recommends promoting poy-by-cell os o poyment tool,
thereby eliminoting the need to enter the license plote of the meter.
Name Location Spaces Daily
Transactions POFs MSMS Spaces per
MSM
Transactions
per Meter
G1 7th Street 646 8s8 4 10 55 86
G2 l-2th Street t34 2L6 L 3 45 72
G3 13th Street 286 452 2 5 57 90
G4 15th Street 803 80s 4 10 80 81
G5 17th Street 1460 2,375 1.4 24 61 99
G5 42nd Street 620 29s 3 8 78 37
G7 City Hall 550 726 8 5 130 25
G8 5th & Alton 1050 t67 6 8 131 2L
G9 Penn. Ave.550 318 5 10 56 32
G10 Sunset Harbor 430 542 6 8 54 68
Soares - TBD 4
TOTATS 6539 6,155 53 95 70 65
973
ln the event thot the City decides to locote meters on eoch floor, the totol number
of meters would increose from 95 to 137. The cost would increose from $Z3l .500
to $l million.
Metered systems olso require vigilont enforcement, or meter poyments decreose
ond motorists become less concerned obout overstoying the time on meter. The
City's on-street enforcement teom commonds on impressive 85% complionce
rote. Wolker recommends mobile license plote recognition (LPR) for goroge
enforcement ond recommends o totol of ten enforcement vehicles be purchosed
for the ten goroges ot o cost of $25,000 per vehicle, or $250,000. Note thot only
eight or nine vehicles will be in use of ony given time (see Section D); however o
bock-up vehicle is recommended in the event of o breokdown or occident.
Ten mobile LPR enforcement systems will olso be required of o cost of $45,000 per
unit, or $450,000.
Note thot no more thon nine vehicles will be in service of ony given time, ond only
3 vehicles will be utilized during the slowest overnight periods, ollowing vehicles to
be rototed out of service periodicolly to preserve their service life. Thot being soid,
the vehicles ond units will still experience significont use (170 hours per doy).
Wolker budgeted f or 507o of the vehicles ond LPR sysiems to be reploced within
ten yeors.
Ten citotion hondheld units ore olso required, of o cost of $95,000.
Purchose Costs:
AMANO
GATED PARCS
SKIDATA
GATED PARCS
T2
UNGATED MSMs
PARCS Equipment lnsta!led s3,14s,8s0 Sg,sg+,grz
Multi-Space Meters lnstalled S731,500
Mobile LPR Svstem/Handhelds s1,130,000
TOTAL PURCHASE PRICE s3,145,950 s3,634,912 s1,961,500
The complexity of the goted PARCS requires significont mointenonce.
Mointenonce controcts double the PARCS equipment cost over o ten yeor period.
Goted systems olso require seryers ond workstotions, while the T2 meter system is
hosted, requiring ongoing monthly monogement, communicotion ond
tronsoction fees (included os mointenonce costs).
Wolker olso included mobile LPR ond hondheld mointenonce ond worronty costs,
os well os T2's 'Digitol Connect' tronsoction fees ($0.02 per tronsoction in excess
of 2.000 per meter per month) os ongoing mointenonce costs. We olso included
estimotes for vehicle mointenonce ond gosoline.
974
Service Controcl ond Moinlenonce Costs
The lorgest operoting expense for both systems is lobor. Lobor costs ore detoiled
below, followed by o recop of oll expenses over o ten yeor period.
D. Cosl of lobor - Operotionol cost comporison of lobor ossocioted wilh goted
revenue controlsyslems like Skidoto ond Amono vs. poy slotions like 12:
The City hos determined thot by implementing ihe new goted PARCS, onnuol
stoffing costs con be reduced significontly; from $2.985,500 to $1,800,000, soving
olmost $1.2 million per yeor. All but one coshier/ottendont will be eliminoted
during most shifts by exponding POFs ond implementing centrolized remote
monitoring (vio intercoms ond oudio/video) for cusiomer interoctions.
The metered system eliminotes oll ottendonts ond coshiers, similor to on-street;
however, os previously stoted, vigilont enforcement is required. Enforcement
stoffing will cost $2.2 million per yeor, or $22 million over ten yeors. Stoff is olso
required for mointenonce ond collections; odding on odditionol $300,000 per
yeor, or $3 million over ten yeors.
The totol cost of lobor for o goted PARCS is $1.8 million per yeor, or $18 million
over ten yeors. The totol cost for the T2 metered system is estimoted of $2.5
million per yeor, or $25.2 million over ien yeors.
en o
AMANO
GATED PARCS
SKIDATA
GATED PARCS
T2
UNGATED MSMs
PARCS Maintenance and Warranty s3,923,239 s3,L58,257 SO
T2 Meter Warrantv s361,000
Metered EMS Hosted Services s570,000
T2 Dieital Connect Transaction Fees S95,zoo
Enforcement Maintenance and Warrantv s378,ooo
Enforcement Licensins and Supoort S118,800
Vehicle Maintenance and Gasoline s332.33s
TOTAL TEN MAINTENANCE YEAR COST s3,823,238 st,158,267 s1,523,000
975
Ten Yeor Lobor Costs:
AMANO
GATED PARCS
SKIDATA
GATED PARCS
T2
UNGATED MSMs
PARCS Staffins s18,000,000 s18,000,000
Meter Enforcement 522,099,7O5
Meter Maintenance S1,483,978
Meter Collections s1,591,583
TOTAL TEN YEAR LABOR COSTS s18,000,000 s18,000,000 525,175,265
Wolker ossumes the following stoff requirements for enforcement, mointenonce
ond collections:
. Eight enforcement stoff driving LPR vehicles from 9:00 om through 3:00 om
Mondoy through Thursdoy.. Nine enforcement stoff driving LPR vehicles from 9:00 om through 3:00 om
Fridoy through Sundoy (busier tronsient octivity).. Three enforcement stoff driving LPR vehicles 3:00 om through 9:00 om every
doy (reduced octivity).o Two 8-hour mointenonce lechnicions on-duty eoch doy.. Eoch meter will be collected every other doy.
Enforcement ond mointenonce stoff ore City employees. Poyroll is estimoted ot
o blended rote of $25 per hour plus 43%for toxes ond benefits.
Collections ore done by the City's operotor of o rote of $9.70 per meter.
A recop of oll costs over o ten yeor period follows:
TotolTen Yeor Costs
AMANO
GATED PARCS
SKIDATA
GATED PARCS
T2
UNGATED MSMs
TOTAT PURCHASE PRICE s3,14s,8s0 s3,534,912 S1,622,s00
TEN YEAR MAINTENANCE COST 53,823,238 s3,158,267 s1,523,000
TEN YEAR STAFFING COST s18,000,000 S18,ooo,ooo Szs.t7s.26s
TOTALTEN YEAR COST S24,969,08s $24,793,L79 s28,320,755
976
Enforcement stoffing for the T2 metered system overshodows the higher priced
purchose ond mointenonce costs of o goted PARCS system. moking the costs for
the T2 goted system $3.4 million higher thon the Amono PARCS over ten yeors, ond
$3.5 million higher thon the Skidoto PARCS over ten yeors.
E. Iechnologicol odvoncements/trends. Whoi is the lrend of equipmenl being
instolled in new construction municipoUuniversity goroges? Will the equipmenl
the City is contemploting purchosing from Skidolo be obsolete five yeors from
now? Will the trending increose in poy-by-phone users diminish the need ond
utility of the equipment the City is contemploting purchosing from Skidoto?
Technologies such os poy-by-cell, mobile opps ond license plote recognition ore
trending os cutting edge solutions; however, the most common type of PARCS
being instolled in goroges todoy is o goted poy-on-foot system.
Poy-by-cell, poy-by-plote, mobile opps ond license plote recognition moy
eventuolly threoten to reploce goted systems, but for now they simply compliment
them or offer on olternotive. As stoted previously. poy-by-cell tronsoctions
typicolly represent less thon 20% of oll tronsoctions, ond therefore ore not
significont enough to reploce infrostruciure; however, poy-by-cell use is
increosing, olreody ol20% in Miomi Beoch.
Wolker is owore of o hondful of goroges in the United Stotes thot hove gone
goteless; however. they represent for less thon 1% of oll PARCs instollotions. We
expect to see more goteless focilities os technologies improve ond more owners
consider these options; however, it is more likely thot goteless goroges will become
o common olternotive thon thot goted sysiems, ond/or Skidoto will become
obsolete. Skidoto is o lorge, modern ond well estoblished PARCS monufocturer.
Skidoto's morket shore hos been growing in the United Stotes.
F. Comporison ond copture role - compore both technologies during lorge specio!
events ond mojor impoct periods. Whot is the copture rote of 12 poy stoiions?
Users of the opp?
Goted systems ore chollenging during events, os moss entronces ond exits creote
bock-ups in the drive lones. Most porking goroges convert to pre-poy during
events, os the troffic bock-ups thot occur while vehicles ore exiting the goroge
ore longer thon while entering. Most goroges olso roise the exit gotes during moss
exits to expedite the exit process. When potrons ore woiting in o line of vehicles,
they frequently blome the focility for not hoving o foster exit process. The deloy
moy be reloted to troffic congestion on lhe street rother thon in the goroge;
however, in some people's minds, perception is reolity.
Goteless systems ore olwoys pre-poy, ond the entry ond exit is olwoys
unobstructed, unless lhe moss entronce or exii couses congesiion. ln this scenorio
it is usuolly more obvious lo the motorists thot the goroge is not responsible for the
deloy (olthough some will wonder why there oren't more lones).
Copture rotes ore typicolly tied to enforcement; however, if there ore not enough
meters to occommodote o moss entronce, some people will get frustroted ond
risk o citotion rother thon being lote for the event becouse they hove to woit in
977
line to poy o meter. This type of citotion invoriobly leods to on oppeol, bloming
the goroge for not hoving enough meters ond contributing to poor public
relotions.
Apps thot enoble the prepoyment of porking help to expedite the entry ond/or
exit process, os the motorists con byposs the POFs or MSMS completely. Wolker
does not hove stotisticol doto on usoge; however, pre-poid opps represent o smoll
percenioge of overoll tronsoctions ond ore typicolly included with poy-by-cell
phone opps, which represent less thon 20% of oll tronsoctions of most focilities,
olthough 20%in Miomi Beoch.
G. Cost of Enforcement - odditionol lobor cost of odding goroges to porking
enforcement officers' roules? Addiiionol revenue to City obove ond beyond
overoge porking fee resulting from porking cilotions being issued? Also, most poy
stotion users poy for more lime lhon they octuolly use, odding to lhe botlom line.
Additionol revenue to City obove ond beyond overoge porking fee with goted
revenue control systems versus T2 poy slolion where users over-poy for porking?
. Enforcement costs ore detoiled in Section D.. Citotion revenue is detqiled in Sections N ond Q.o Revenue from prepoying of the meters is oddressed in Section S.
H. Adjustment of Porking Roles - Which system provides more flexibility bosed on
whol level of the goroge you pork in? Which system ollows for reodily
distinguishing between residents ond non-residenls ollowing for differenl price
structures for eoch?
Goted PARCS connot independently distinguish where o vehicle wos porked;
however, porking guidonce system vendors such os Pork Assist offer comero
bosed guidonce systems thot con integrote wiih the PARCS system to identify
where the vehicle porked when colculoiing the fee. Amono hos done ihis with
Pork Assist in o poy-on-foot goted system. We hove no doubt thot Skidoto could
do this os well, ond there ore other porking guidonce vendors os well.
Poy-by-license plote meters olso connot independently distinguish where o
vehicle wos porked. Mobile LPR provides GPS softwore thot con identify vehicle
locotions, so theoreticolly on integrotion is possible whereby locotion-bosed rote
structures ore possible; however, we ore not owore of ony current instollotions.
It moy be possible to try io restrict meter poyments to the level thot the vehicle
porked on in order to conduct locotion-bosed porking rotes; however this would
be lorgely unenforceoble ond would simply rely on motorists poying for porking on
the level where they porked. Note thot Wolker recommends locoting most
porking meters on the ground floors (or other floors with significont ingress or egress
from the focility).
Poy-by-spoce meter systems ollow for locotion-bosed porking rotes; however
Wolker believes the benefits of license plote enforcement outweigh the benefits
of locotion-bosed pricing, ond poyment modes ore restricted to either one or the
other.
10
978
Resident ond non-resident porking is oddressed on Section T.
l. Pre-poid porking reservolions - which syslem is more effective?
Reservotion systems, mobile opplicotions (opps) ond poy-by-cell (PbC) ollow
potrons to reserve ond poy for porking prior to orriving of the Goroge.
Benefits of o reservotion system include receiving the porking poyment in
odvonce, which helps insure the motorist will not pork elsewhere, enhoncing
revenue, os well os contoct ond trovel informotion obout the motorist for doto
collection ond morketing purposes. Perhops most importontly, pre-poid
reservotions eliminote the need to conduct o tronsoction in the goroge, reducing
congestion in the entry ond exit lones of o goted system, ond reducing foot troffic
ot the MSM of POF.
Most reservotion systems will offer cloud bosed solutions, reducing copitol outloy
ond/or infrostruclure costs, ond most providers will host the system os well. ln order
for the system to be successful it needs to integrote with the PARCS softwore to
control ond mointoin inventory ond revenue. Since these systems ore relotively
new to the U.S., there moy be costs ossocioted with customizing the PARCS
softwore to integrote with the reservotion system.
Metered systems do not include focility counts, consequently the goroge runs the
risk of filling before o reseryed/prepoid customer orrives. A focility count system
con be inslolled independently, or o stotionory or mobile LPR system con provide
focility stotus to insure thot the goroge mointoins porking ovoilobility for pre-poid
porkers - including monthly porkers.
J. Revenue ond Expense lmpocts of Metered vs. proposed PARCS replocement or
other olternotive syslem:
Annuol goroge revenue is cunently $16 million (in o goted PARCS setting). ln o
metered scenorio the City hos experienced on 85% complionce roie, reducing
onnuol revenue by 157o, or $2.4 million.
In the current PARCS setting, ADA motorists ore required to show their driver's
license in order to receive volidoted porking. ln o metered setting, ADA motorists
will not need to show their driver's licenses, which will leod to obuse. Wolker
estimotes thot ihe number of (unpoid) ADA porking sessions will double, costing
the City on odditionol $255,000 per yeor (the current onnuol volue of ADA
volidoied porking in the goroges).
Citotion revenue will generote $5.7 million; however, the County retoins 33% of
citotion revenue ond 30% goes to the school crossing guords ond technology
(Auiocite) fund. This leoves $2.1 million for the City
We estimote o3% ($480,000) revenue bump from overpoyments due to prepoying
of the meters.
Citotion revenue is discussed in Sections N ond Q. Overpoyments ore discussed in
Section S.
11
979
K.
The net impoct from the obove is on onnuol loss of $55,000 with the T2 metered
system, or $550,000 over ten teors.
Ten Yeor Revenues
Expenses were detoiled in Sections C ond D. Following ore the ten yeor totol costs:
Ien Yeor Net
Colculote, project ond compore the lotol purchose, instollolion, service ond repoir
cosls of lhe Skidoto equipment being considered by the Ciiy vs. the T2 poy slolions
over ol0-yeor period, including service conlrocls.
This onolysis wos conducted olong with Amono equipment, in detoil, under
sections C ond D. The totol costs ore recopped in Section J obove.
Using solory doto provided by the City, projecl ond compore the lobor sovings
(excluding porking enforcemenl) ossocioted wiih instolling the Skidoto equipmenl
being considered by the City vs. inslolling T2 poy stolions:
The City hos determined thot by implementing the new goted PARCS, onnuol
stoffing costs con be reduced significontly; from $2,985,500 to $1,800,000, soving
olmost $1.2 million per yeor. While significoni, the T2 metered system eliminoies
goroge stoff except for enforcement, mointenonce ond collections; similor to on-
street meters. lf we exclude enforcement, the T2 metered stoffing costs ore just
$307,000 per yeor (compored to $,l.8 million per yeor with Skidoto).
AMANO
GATED PARCS
SKIDATA
GATED PARCS
T2
UNGATED MSMs
Transaction Revenue 5r,60,000,000 s160,000,000 SlGo,ooo,ooo
Loss Due to Non-Pavment $26,547,6701
Citation Revenue 557,425,027
Citation Revenue to
Countv/Crossi ne G uards/Autocite $36,777,7671
Meter Overpavments s4,900,000
TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUE Sloo,ooo,ooo S160,ooo,ooo S159,499,590
AMANO
GATED PARCS
SKIDATA
GATED PARCS
T2
UNGATED MSMs
TOTALTEN YEAR NET s13s.030.912 S13s,206,821 sL}t,L78,824
12
980
The ten-yeor difference is stoggering ($18 million for PARCS vs. $1.5 million for
meters); however note thot meter enforcement costs ore $2.2 million per yeor, or
$22 million over ten yeors.
M. Recommend the number of porking enforcemenl officers required to polrolthe l0
goroges if the City instolls the T2 poy stotions, ond using solory dolo provided by
the City, estimole lhe ossocioted cosls:
Wolker recommends implementing mobile license plote recognition to enforce
the l0 porking goroges. The City currently uses mobile LPR to enforce permit
porking.
Mobile LPR utilizes vehicle mounted comeros thot reod ond record license plote
numbers os the vehicle is driven through porking lots, goroges or on-street. A
processor is typicolly instolled in the trunk, ond o touch screen computer is instolled
between the driver seot ond the possenger seot. All doto is downlooded ond
stored in o seporote stotionory workstotion/server.
The LPR softwore receives reol-time dotoboses ond updotes of poid license plotes
from porking meter, poy-by cell, ond permit/monthly softwore. lf the LPR comero
reods o plote thot is not recorded os registered or poid, on oudible olorm ("ping")
olerts the enforcement officer, who verifies the license plote ond ciies the vehicle.
As stoted in Section D, Wolker recommends the following stoffing levels for
enforcement, mointenonce ond collections:
Eight enforcement stoff driving 8 LPR vehicles from 9:00 om through 3:00 om
Mondoy through Thursdoy. Seven vehicles hove goroge ossignments (see
below) ond one vehicle is o 'flooter', providing supplementol coveroge,
bosed on porking ond troffic conditions.
Nine enforcement sioff driving 9 LPR vehicles from 9:00 om through 3:00 om
Fridoy ihrough Sundoy (odding o second 'flooter' vehicle for supplementol
coveroge during busier tronsient ociivity).
Three enforcement stoff driving 3 LPR vehicles 3:00 om through 9:00 om
every doy (reduced octivity).
Two 8-hour mointenonce technicions on-duty eoch doy.
Eoch meter will be collected every other doy.
Following is o breokdown of recommended mobile LPR coveroge per goroge:
LPR Coveroge: Mondoy through lhursdoy 9:00 om - 3:00 om
LPR GARAGE LOCATION
TOTAL
SPACES
TRANSIENT
SPACES
Vehicle 1 G1 7th Street 646 549
G2 12th Street L34 87
G3 l.3th Street 286 258
SPACES 1,066 894
a
a
981
Vehicle 2 G4 16th Street 803 591
SPACES 803 591
Vehicles 3 & 4 G5 15th Street 1.460 L,037
G9 Penn. Ave,550 446
SPACES 2,020 1,483
Vehicle 5 G6 42nd Street 620 312
SPACES 620 312
Vehicle 6 G7 Citv Hall 650 231
G10 Sunset Harbor 430 359
SPACES 1,080 s90
Vehicle 7 G8 5th & Alton 1,050 988
SPACES 1,050 988
Vehicle 8 Supplemental coverage based on activity.
On Fridoys, Soturdoys ond Sundoys, o second 'flooter' vehicle is odded to provide
supplementol coveroge during busier tronsient octivity on weekends.
tPR C ihrouqh lhursdoy 3:00 om - 9:00 om
LPR GARAGE rocATtoN
TOTAL
SPACES
TRANSIENT
SPACES
Vehicle 1 G1 7th Street 646 549
G2 12th Street t34 87
G3 13th Street 286 2s8
G4 16th Street 803 591
SPACES 1,869 1.485
Vehicle 2 G5 LTth Street 7,460 7.O37
G7 Citv Hall 650 312
G9 Penn. Ave.550 446
SPACES 2,670 L.795
Vehicle 3 G5 42nd Street 620 237
G8 5th & Alton 1,050 988
G10 Sunset Harbor 430 359
SPACES 2,too t,578
The totol hours required
hours per yeor. Using o
for enforcement overogeslT0 hours
fully looded, blended hourly rote of
per doy, ot 62,000
$35.67, the onnuol
14
982
N.
poyroll for enforcemeni is projected to be $2.2 million per yeor, or $22 million over
ten yeors.
Note thot this does not include hourly rote increoses during the ten yeor period.
Wolker recommends utilizing Go-4 three-wheel vehicles for mobile LPR
enforcement. These vehicles ore smoller thon regulor cors (52.5" wide), ollowing
them to stop to write o citotion without blocking troffic, os cors will be oble to drive
oround them. Pricing ($25,000) is comporoble to the Ford C-Mox Hybrid vehicle
currently being recommended by ihe Fleet Monogement Division.
Using on-slreel doto provided by lhe City, extropoloie the projected ciiotion
revenue for the l0 porking goroges generoled from non-poymenl ond/or
overlime porking if 12 poy stolions ore instolled:
The Ciiy's existing meter system hos on 85% complionce rote, meoning thot 85%
of oll porkers poy for their porking. The City's citotion copture rote is just 10%, which
meons thot only 10% of oll unpoid porkers ore cited. The City overoges o 90%
collection rote for citotions.
The porking goroges generoted 2.2million poid tronsoctions lost yeor. lf 15% of
those tronsoctions were unpoid, thot would represeni 337,000 unpoid tronsoctions.
lf the City cited 10% ot those porkers ond collected the $18.00 fine from 90% of
them, the revenue generoted would totol olmost $5.5 million; however, the City
only retoins 37% of the citotion revenue. The County retoins 33% ond 30% goes to
the school crossing guords ond technology (Autocite) fund. This leoves
opproximotely $2,000,000 for the City; however we need to foctor in the unpoid
meter revenue in order to determine the net result.
The overoge porking goroge tronsociion is equol to $7.00. This meons thot the
opproximote volue of the 332,000 unpoid porking tronsoctions is $2.4 million,
leoving o net loss of $400.000 per yeor. Note thot this ossumes o 90% citotion
collection roie.
While not oddressed in our finonciol projections, Wolker is concerned obout the
current $18.00 fine for o porking meter violotion. The doily moximum rote in most
goroges is $20.00; therefore it would be less expensive to receive o citotion thon
to poy the doily moximum rote. Some motorists would risk on $18.00 citotion for
shorter time fromes os well. The fine omount will need to be increosed or meter
complionce will be significontly reduced
Opine on inslolling license plole recognilion (LPR) lechnology of lhe goroge
enlronces ond integroting with the T2 poy stolions to improve enforcement. !s o
100% coplure rote possible?
Stotionory LPR uses stotionory comeros of the entronces (ond/or exits) of o focility
to copture ihe license plote imoges of cors os they enter ond/or exit the focility.
System softwore soves the license plote imoges. converts them into text records
ond records the times the vehicles entered (ond/or exited) the focility.
o.
983
ln o metered porking focility, the softwore con integrote with multi-spoce meter,
poy-by cell phone ond/or permit/monthly softwore to identify unpoid vehicles for
enforcement purposes. Theoreticolly, this could creote o 100% copture rote;
however, this is predicoted upon the comeros copturing 100% of oll license plotes,
which rorely occurs. Mobile LPR is not perfect. LPR comeros con only reod whot
they con see. Bicycle rocks ond similor things in tow con obscure the plote. Older,
foded or dirty plotes ore tougher to reod. The percentoge of license plotes thot
ore reod by the system is considered the copture rote. Wolker conducted o study
ond found the overoge copture rote for stotionory comeros to be 91.7%, which
meons thot olmost l0% of the license plotes were not coptured by the system.
Furthermore, every stote hos different types, colors, fonts ond plote designs,
moking it more chollenging for the softwore to identify some numbers ond letters,
ond the softwore sometimes confuses similor numbers ond letters, such os O ond
Q, or S ond 5, or B ond 8, etc. The percentoge of license plotes ihot ore reod 100%
occurotely is colled the reod rote. Wolker's study found on overoge occurocy
rote of 91.57o; however, note thot 6 of 7 digits were reod occurotely 97.1% of the
time, 5 of 7 digits were reod occurotely 98.6% of the time ond 4 of 7 digits were
reod occurotely 99.1% of the time. These portiol reods would still enoble the
system to identify the vehicle os poid or unpoid with enforcement stoff providing
visuol confirmotion.
Thot being soid, 10% of the vehicles will not be coptured by the system. Todoy's
technology connot provide o lOO% copture rote. However, on-street
enforcement reportedly coptures just 10% of the meter violotions on-street;
therefore, 90% would be o significont improvement. There ore olso consideroble
operoting cost sovings thot moy or moy not be higher thon o l0% loss in revenue.
Note thot LPR technology is constontly improving. A few yeors ogo 80% wos
considered o high copture or reod rote. Todoy, severol monufocturers report
ochieving ?5% lo 98% copture ond/or occurocy rotes; however we hove not
confirmed this level of occurocy.
Note thot Wolker is recommending mobile (vehicle mounted) license plote
recognition rother ihon stotionory LPR, os mobile LPR enobles enforcement stoff to
cite the vehicle when the system identifies the vehicle. Stotionory LPR identifies
the vehicle when it is in violotion but does nol know where the vehicle is locoted.
LPR technology hos mode the post-processing of citotions o new ond potentiolly
efficient method for issuing citotions. Rother thon plocing citotions on the
windshields of vehicles, oll photogrophic imoges of potentiolly citoble vehicles
would be reviewed ofter the foct (bock of the office), in o processing center.
Confirmed citotions would be delivered to motorists vio U.S. moil. This is similor to
red-light comero enforcement, but is not yet outhorized for porking enforcement
in most municipolities, including Miomi Beoch.
Post-processing could significonlly reduce or even eliminote stoffing costs for
mobile LPR, os stotionory LPR (ot the entronces ond exits) would moke driving
through the goroges for meter enforcement unnecessory. Note thot visuol
inspections would no longer be possible for portiol plote reods, ond thot portiol
reods would probobly not be considered o volid citotion upon oppeol; however,
75
984
P.
the onnuol enforcement sovings of olmost $1.4 million per yeor would more thon
cover the lost citotion revenue.
This is similor to the SunPoss toll sysiem, which debits SunPoss holder's occounts ond
moils out citotions for non-complionce. SunPoss is now being offered of severol
oirports. SunPoss is olso storting to offer the technology to porking goroges (for o
smoll percentoge of eoch tronsoction).
Opine on increosed poy-by-phone ond similor poy-in-odvonce technologies ond
if they polenliolly undermine the juslificotion of using goled revenue control
systems:
Poy-by-cellis for more common in metered settings thon goted settings; however,
poy-by-cell con be used in o goted setting if bor code reoders ore employed.
Proof of poyment(or volidotion) in the form of o bor code (either poper or on o
smortphone or other computerized device) con be sconned by o borcode reoder
of on entronce gote if the fee hos been prepoid or pre-volidoted, ond/or of the
exit gote if the ticket wos volidoted or poid ofter the vehicle entered the focility.
The impoct of poy-by-cell is o reduction in poy-on-foot or multi-spoce meter
tronsoctions, os poy-by-cell byposses ihe poyment mochine. This is considered o
customer service omenity, os the porking poyment is typicolly more convenient
when conducted vio cellphone, porticulorly if the license plote is pre-registered
ond doesn't need to be entered for eoch porking session.
As stoted previously, poy-by-cell tronsoctions ore typicolly fewer thon 20% of oll
tronsoctions, ond therefore not significont enough to reduce infrostructure;
however, poy-by-cell use is increosing, olreody of 20% in Miomi Beoch.
Poy-by-cell requires on odditionol loyer of integrotion for o metered system, os the
enforcement system (such os LPR) needs to receive the poy-by-cell poyment
doto.
Using on-slreet doto provided by the City, extropolote lhe projected citotion
revenue forviololions otherlhon no-poyment or overtime porking itT2poy stolions
ore instolled in the 10 goroges (i.e. hondicop viololions, expired togs, etc.):
Approximolely 64% of oll porking citotions ore for unpoid (overtime) meters. This
meons lhot 36% of oll porking citotions ore for other offences, such os restricted or
prohibited porking, stotute violotions, on involid license plote or unouthorized
porking in o hondicop porking spoce. There ore fewer occosions for motorists to
pork illegolly in o goroge thon on-street. lt does occur, but for less frequently.
Wolker extropoloted the percentoges of vorious porking citotions issued lost yeor
in relotion to the number of spoces enforced, in order to determine the potentiol
for citotion revenue from non-metered porking violotions in the goroges.
Note thot only police personnel cite for involid togs (5% of oll citotions), so we
eliminoted these citotions. We ossumed 80% of on-street percenioges for ADA
violotions ond l0% for other infroctions. Wolker estimotes thot citotion revenue
from non-meier porking violotions will generote opproximotely $500,000. Note
thot this ossumes o90% citotion collection rote. Also note thoi os stoted previously,
o.
17
985
R.
the City will only receive opproximolely 37% of the citotion revenue, or
opproximotely $223,000 per yeor.
Opine on the potentio! useful life of the Skidoto equipment being considered by
the City. Is obsolescence o relevonl issue in comporing Skidoto ond 12 syslems?
The useful life of most porking equipment is roted of eight to ten yeors depending
upon frequency of use, climote, ond how well it's mointoined. This is similor for
both meters ond for goted PARCS; however, there ore mony instonces of porking
equipment losting for longer. Mointenonce ond repoir costs typicolly increose os
the equipment oges.
Obsolescence is rore. For exomple, conventionol porking meters hove been
oround for 80 yeors, ond while they ore extremely limited in their feotures ond
functionolity, Wolker estimotes thot 4 million ore still instolled in the United Stotes
olone. Goted PARCS hove been in existence for olmost os long, ond olthough
there is o lot of tolk obout gotes "going owoy" due to cellphone, opps ond license
plote recognition technology, only o hondful of goroges hove removed their
gotes to dote.
During the kick-off meeiing concerns were roised obout the demise of Federol
APD, once o leoding PARCS monufocturer. There wos some concern obout the
industry overoll. Federol APD wos in decline when 3M ocquired them, ond while
Wolker does not know why or whot hoppened internolly, we view it os on onomoly
rother thon o sign of things to come. PARCS hos become big business, ottrocting
the likes of 3M, Xerox ond other lorge corporotions. While this creotes greoter
competition, it olso shows ihot there is opportunity for growth potentiol in the U.S.
porking morket. ln Wolker's estimotion, Skidoto ond T2 ore exomples of two
componies poised for growth.
Bosed on onecdotol evidence gleoned from our expertise ond experience,
project the revenue potenliol generoted by the overpoymenl of porking if the City
instolls 12 poy slolions in lhe l0 goroges:
One of the benefits of prepoymenis to the City is thot people frequently poy for
more time lhon they need to insure thot they do not overstoy their time ond
receive o citotion. ln on-street scenorios it is estimoted thot 10%to 20% of porking
meter revenue is derived from overpoyments.
ln o poy-ot-exit setting people ossume they ore only poying for the octuol time
they porked, bul porking rotes ore typicolly set by the hour, meoning thot if you
porked for seventy minutes you would poy the some omount os if you porked for
two hours. This is similor to poying for two hours of o porking meter ond leoving
ofter 70 minutes, but becouse porking meters ollow motorists to insert coins ond
poy for froctions of on hour, ii is deemed on overpoyment.
Furthermore, on-street porking hos limited hours, ond multi-spoce meters hove the
convenience button thot typicolly purchoses two or three hours moximum.
Motorists will be for less likely to press the 'mox' button when the moximum fee is
equivolent to $20.00. Motorists will try to plon their time more reolisticolly.
s.
986
T.
Wiihout question, some people will prepoy for porking ond hove their plons
chonge, ond consequently leove eorlier thon they hod plonned; however, Wolker
does not hove enough doto or onecdotol evidence to stote with confidence
whot the revenue potentiol is for overpoyments. Wolker recommends o
conservotive projection of 37o (of $,l6 million), which is equivolent to $480,000 per
yeor.
Opine on which of the two syslems is better equipped to distinguish between
residents ond non-residents in setling differenl rote structures.
Wolker understonds thot the City offers porking discounts to residents through its
poy-by-cell vendor, Porkmobile. This is eosy to do in o poy-by-plote setting, os
Porkmobile eosily integrotes with poy-by-plote porking. ln o poy-by-plote setting
the license plote seryes os o permit. enobling residents to register their license
plotes in order to receive o discounted porking rote. The resident willolso be oble
to receive o discounted porking rote of the poy-by-plote meter once they hove
pre-registered their license plote. When the resident enters the plote number ot
the meler, the discounted rote would be enobled.
As previously stoted, poy-by-cell con work in o goted system os well; however o
bor code reoder is typicolly required, os o borcode is disployed on the cellphone
ond sconned to pulse the gote. Note thot Skidoto's PARCS utilizes borcode tickets
ond reoders ond con therefore support this type of poy-by-cell option.
At leost one vendor poy-by-cellvendor (QuickPoy) offers o cell phone integrotion
thot involves hoving the cell phone pulse the gote; however, this requires o
Bluetooth gote kit be instolled in the gote box.
Trodilionolly, pre-poid stored volue memory cords ("Smort Cords") ore offered to
residents for goted scenorios. The cords ore pre-looded with o dollor volue, ond
when inserted into o poy-on-fool mochine, ihe porking fee is deducted from the
cord. The cords ore sold of discounts to residents. Newer versions include softwore
thot recognizes the cord ond ossigns o discounted rote structure to the cord - so
the cord octs like o volidotion.
Another option is to reploce the smort cord with o proximity cord. The cord would
be prelooded ond sold of o discount, ond the user would be oble to use it of the
entronce ond exit, bypossing the poy-on-foot mochine ond providing foster
ingress ond egress to ond from the goroge.
Another option is offering residents volidoted porking vio o web-bosed volidotion
system. Residents would be given possword protected occess to on online
volidotion progrom, where they could print out o unique borcode volidotion
(discount).
Recommendotion:
Wolker recommends o goted PARCS in the ten goroges for the following reosons:
U.
19
987
3.
l. While the metered system is less expensive to procure, instoll ond mointoin, the
lobor required to effectively enforce the goroges moke the T2 metered system
more expensive to operote by $3.5 million over ten yeors.
lf the City desires o metered setting, Wolker recommends controcting with the
City's operotor to provide enforcement (ond mointenonce) services, os the
poyroll costs would be significontly lower.
2. Metered revenue projections ore $500,000 less thon o goied PARCS over ten
yeors. This is due to the City netting just 33% of enforcement revenue ond no
woy of verifying ADA driver's licenses.
Metered systems do not provide focility count systems. Some of the goroges
fill up on o regulor bosis 'in seoson', requiring stoff to monitor goroge
occuponcy, ond close the goroge to tronsient porkers, in order to 'hold' some
porking for monthly porkers. Gotes ore olso required to control (close or open
entry ond exit lones).
lf the City desires o metered system, Wolker recommends procuring o goted
count system, which would odd significont cosi to the project. We typicolly
recommend mointoining existing count systems ond gotes; however, the
exisiing PARCS is no longer being monufoctured ond support is being phosed
out.
Note thot mobile LPR provides cor counts os enforcement is conducted;
however, the counts will only be conducted on on hourly bosis, compored to
o count system thot counts vehicles os they enter ond exit the focility (in reol
time).
The goted PARCS provides o higher level of customer service thon o metered
system:
As the City knows from implementing poy-by-plote on-street, there is o
leorning curve with motorists needing to enter their license plotes of the
meters. ln o goroge setting, motorists who neglect to note their license
plote number will need to return to their cor, which could be forther
owoy thon in on on-street setting.
lf the City desires o metered setting, Wolker recommends instolling
significont signoge on oll floors ond elevotors, odvising people to note
their license plotes for the meter poyment. Suggest thot motorists toke
photos of their license plotes, or write their plote numbers down. Wolker
olso recommends promoting poy-by-cell os o poyment tool, thereby
eliminoting the need to enter the license plote of the meier.
Motorists won't wont to worry obout receiving o citotion if their plons
chonge ond/or they ore deloyed, ond lhey will resent needing to
overpoy the meter to ovoid this. They olso won't enjoy overpoying for
porking if they decide to leove eorlier thon they plonned.
4.
20
988
lf the City selects o metered setting, Wolker recommends promoting
poy-by-cell services, thereby enobling motorists to odd time remotely
(Porkmobile will text motorists when their time is obout to expire).
Wolker further recommends offering poy-by-cell customers the option
of 'stopping' their porking session when they return to their cor. This will
prevent overpoyments, thereby reducing revenue; however, it will be
very well received by the public ond will help the City win occeptonce
for metered goroges. Wolker projected $480,000 in onnuol
overpoyment revenue. Wolker estimotes thot fewer thon holf of the
potrons will utilize poy-by-cell services (the City's current usoge is 2OT):
therefore the potentiol onnuol cost in revenue is estimoted of $240,000.
Metered systems do noi hove intercoms for customer ossistonce. lf the
City selects o metered setting, Wolker recommends instolling intercoms
in oll of the goroges. This could be done for less thon $100,000.
Meters will not provide chonge; however, eliminoting cosh tronsoctions
is o best proctice, os credit cord tronsoctions ore typicolly foster thon
cosh tronsoctions, ond reducing cosh is more efficient for collections
ond improves oudit control.
lf the City selects the goted PARCS, Wolker recommends committing fully to poy-
on-foot. Wolker understonds thot the City's stoffing recommendotions significontly
reduces the number of coshiers by exponding POFs ond implementing centrolized
remote monitoring (vio intercoms ond oudio/video) for customer interoctions.
Wolker recommends eliminoting ollcqshiers, os the ultimote gools of o POF system
ore to fully outomote tronsoctions ond to remove os mony tronsoctions from the
exit lones os possible. When ony coshiers ore present, some motorists will ignore
the POFs ond utilize the coshiers.
We understond thot o humon presence willstill be required ond desired; however,
on ottendont who is free to wolk oround ond ossist customers of the POFs ond/or
the exit lones con be more effective thon o coshier sitting in o coshier booth.
This moy olso result in further reductions in lobor costs, os well os increosed oudit
control ond operotionol efficiencies (no fee computers, coshier reports or coshier
drowers).
Pleose let me know if you hove ony questions, or when you'd like to discuss. Thonk you.
Sincerely,
WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS
QuK-J*'
Don Kupfermon, CAPP
Director of Cor Pork Monogement Systems
989
RESOLUTION TO BE SUBMITTED
990