Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/15/2011, C4 - REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR CREDIT CARD CAPABLE PARKING METERS AND SERVICE CONTRACT, PROPOSAL NO. 911 council °° 1115111 j acenaa Report CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: Jay D. Walter, Director of Public Wor� Prepared By: Robert Horch, Parking Services Managet� SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR CREDIT CARD CAPABLE PARKING METERS AND SERVICE CONTRACT, PROPOSAL NO. 91137 RECOMMENDATION Authorize staff to advertise Request for Proposals (RFP) for the purchase and on-going service of 400 credit card capable parking meters, and authorize the City Manager to award the contract if the lowest responsible bid is within the 2011-12 budgeted amounts. DISCUSSION Background On April 5, 2011 the City Council reviewed possible parking revenue enhancements and directed staff to pursue the purchase of approximately 400 parking meters that accept credit cards and coins in a new downtown "super core". The current hourly rate approved for these meters is $1.50. With the adoption of the 2011-13 Financial Plan, the City Council approved a capital improvement project for the purchase of the parking meters and approved the operating budget for contract services of the on-going communication and software expenses. This project is forecasted to produce $218,500 in net annual parking revenues to the City's Parking Fund while providing an additional payment method with a credit card in the new "super core" area. Work Scope. The selected contractor will be responsible for providing both the parking meter equipment and the on-going secured communication software system required for the credit card accepting meters. Since the secured communication and software system is proprietary to the parking meter company selected, the on-going software services are expected to continue for the life of these meters. The RFP includes the purchase of the credit card meters, the secured communications software which links the meters to the City's merchant account and Parking Services, and staff training. Review Process. The RFP calls for the proposing firms to submit two sealed envelopes: the first with a qualifications proposal (including general information, references, and insurance information) and the second with a cost proposal. The RFP then lays out the following three-phase selection process: 1. The review team opens the qualifications proposal and selects three to five firms for follow-up interviews. 2. The review team interviews the selected firms and ranks them. References submitted by top- ranking firms are contacted. 3. The review team then opens the submitted price proposals from the top-ranked firms and recommends contract award based on best pricing and services. C4-1 C O RFP for Credit Card Capable Parking Meters and Service, Proposal 91137 Page 2 Under the three-step process outlined above, the proposals will be rated based on experience and expertise, approach to completing the work, the contractor's understanding of the work scope,references, and proposed compensation. In short, contract award will not be based solely on price, but on a combination of factors in determining the best overall services for the most competitive price. Tentative Review Process Schedule Issue RFP 11/19/11 Receive proposals 12/14/11 Complete proposal evaluation 12/19/11 Conduct finalist interviews 01/05/12 Award contract by the City Manager 01/12/12 Execute contract 01/31/12 Start Work 03/12/12 Estimated Completion 03/26/12 These dates are estimated as this project requires installation, programming, bank integration for these new meters, and staff training along with the regular City approval process. However, every effort will be made to have the meters operating by April 2012. FISCAL IMPACT This capital project was approved as part of the 2011-13 Financial Plan, Appendix B, pages 3-207 through 3-209. The parking meter purchases and secure communication systems are supported by both the Parking Funds' capital and operating budgets. As part of the 2011-13 Financial Plan, the City Council approved $222,300 in Capital Improvement Project (CIP) funds for the purchase of the new parking meters in 2011-12. Council also approved additional and on-going operating budget.funding for contract services in the amount of$17,600 for a partial first year and $26,300 in the second year. The additional operating budget funds will provide for the secured credit card services and software support required for the new parking meters. As stated in the April 5, 2011 Council Agenda staff report, the additional contract service expenditures were calculated in combination with a revenue off-set. Staff estimated there will be approximately $47,900 in additional annual expenses for the communication and credit card fees for these new parking meters. This expenditure cost was offset by $21,600 for the reduced contract services costs currently used for the collection and processing meter coins. Staff estimated this revenue off--set to result in additional net contract service expenses of$26,300 annually. Parkin- Services Est. Contract Services Cost Credit Card Meter Expense 47,900 Reduction of coin collecting and processing (21,600) Additional Contract Services Funding 26,300 C4-2 C- RFP for Credit Card Capable Parking Meters and Service, Proposal 91137 Page 3 I'arkino Scrvices 2011-12 2012-13 Fiscal 11111).'Ict Summary Bud-et Bud-vt 50600-91121.956 Capital Projects 221,300 50600-7227 Contract Services 17,600 26,300 ALTERNATIVE Award Contract Based on Lowest Bid Only. Staff could specify performance based criteria within the RFP and award the contract based on the lowest bid received. Staff does not recommend this alternative because this type of service is highly specialized and there are a limited number of companies that provide this type of parking meter systems. Selecting the lowest bid could result in selection of a company that has not worked out problems and defects which could result in delays and lost parking revenues. Staff recommends using the review process that has been successful in finding a qualified firm for this type of service for the term of the agreement. ATTACHMENTS 1. 2011-13 Financial Plan,.Appendix B, Pages 3-2007 to 3-209 2. April 5, 2011 Council Agenda Report AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE Request for Proposal, Specification No. 91137 TACouncil Agenda Reports\Public Works CAR\201 I\Parking\91 137 Credit Card Meters&service C4-3 ` ATTACHMENT " 7J 5. Ei. ❑ ❑ b v c7 R X m 0 M o : °. W p C' o CD O - o D x ' C0CD D y o o Cil b Cil CA o o' » 14. o CD o z cn '' 0 oa y n o co 5 o m cc m a o eD wo CD 0CD W oc 5 w o c — o b CD n cD Q C m o CD CD W vo -cos E C Y .a y 00 O y CD O p /� fwn n • CD CD IW CD CD C w m a• a CCD C ^ Cn w •-• Cr' n n o C � C �CD co m Co C . . � 0 a. C17 CD � = Noon- o � z a. M = co m .r -s C 1 cs o v coo (7 CCD m ° C" 6' (-D0 CD r7 a CD M CD --CD CD c 0 z CD rL CD mR R `= z ?i CD a• �F to 0 O y CD � ((q 'y Lv CD 'CCD CD' CDD n • 0 CD N CD .. CD C p CD y �. Cl O m rt O' 'Oq • O v Ata = k co 0 yr m y CD C cm a w Q � CD -s O o ^ 0w w CDD �j w y m C3 o a m OP p' ITI Cc y Q CD N CD „n. OCD y U p N O O ^ .'i n O CD p CD cD N CL x P w O CD C^-D F• CCD X p CD C a CD O^ CD = 01 n R.`< R. O -r. N -moi .. O O a. o vi. 0 A C.� w ER o C) o .. O R CD '+ cD C4-4 ATTACHMENT 0. = C "O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ R =t � rt r. �•� ■ C G7 Crl C y CD o C co R G y y 0 ° M @ CD a Y m o ° .. CD c a. P o. d CC DO 7Q A ?? a 0 0 C o O G R Z O m p Q lZ7 vi c EA EA om oom �• oo �o � y p� m `/� ■ o mCD .fl x o a Y N N N {A EA N '3 N N N .p•. 'T z N N O r O N N O CD fD O O O O O O O O w p O N O N O O N 0 z N O fA EA N Q f% N "^• "� O �• N N O O ,a„ ■ �•rj � (A aa.W O O W Dp O O W �• aC ■ n N EA 69 N y N O O ^ Opp O O A = O O ? ? O O .P � � y N 4A b9 N N D O N N O O A w w A A fA 69 �•- O O .-. 40 O N N O O V J '•' 4A EA W b9 V) (A N N r N N N N N N N N N N ,•.� U1 � ,.� N N W O O' O O d O O d C4-5 ATrACHM£mT | -3 } @ E / ca7k � 2 Rm7 ;_ ■ A \] ` � \ . [ yCD § W 0 CD / ES ° \®u », /� so§ • m § EI ƒ� k \ ; ƒ ( 9 � 2E r CD \ d & g { R 922 } } * ® E \ EE ° CD ? E ft E* ak » Q ; �. % § \ § m « ul z e © R E a ) ) ) / & @ E w § $ $ § �7 8 CD § ( \ � o& § _ • ƒ m . 2ƒ ) o � \ 3. . \ A \ e � m « M 2j \ \ \ E � �0. CD CD e § § § � / / 2 g eE AE ` " E w ; } � } \ « § q ) ) � Dq Eƒ � » I � § §' cr § ` § _ & \ f �k § ; ) ( . ƒ / E § \ & n ) %/ § \ \ \ C4-6 J ATTACHMENT a Counck M.-tftDft April5,2011 j acEnba RepoRt ,mpH 3 CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: Jay D. Walter, Director of Public Works Prepared By: Robert Horch,Parking Services Manager SUBJECT: PARKING REVENUE ENHANCEMENTS RECOMMENDATION 1. Charge for parking at the parking meters and in the parking structures on Sundays from 11:00 am to 6:00 pm beginning on July 1,2011. 2. Increase the on-street parking meter rate from $1.25 to $1.50 an hour in a new downtown "super core" (as shown in Attachment 1) beginning on November 1, 2011 and keep structure rates at$0.75 an hour. 3. Direct staff to pursue the purchase and installation of approximately 400 credit card meters to improve customer convenience by November 2011. REPORT IN BRIEF City Council requested staff to return with two revenue enhancements, 1) for expanding parking services on Sundays, and 2) increase the hourly rate difference between structures and parking meters in the downtown core. These revenue enhancements are needed to afford the Palm- Nipomo parking structure. The changes are also consistent with best management practices by establishing higher rates in parking areas with higher parking demand and encouraging use of the parking structures. Staff is recommending charging on Sundays from 11:00 AM to 6:00 PM, which will increase revenues by approximately $244,859 annually. This is when downtown opens for Sunday business and when City parking areas are being used. Downtown businesses will benefit from the management of parking during these hours. The current meter rate difference is $0.50 an hour when comparing the 2-hour meters in the downtown core ($1.25 an hour) to the structure rate ($0.75 an hour). Staff is recommending increasing the rate difference to $0.75 an hour by establishing a third zone or"super core" zone with meter rates of $1.50 an hour. This new zone will cover areas with the highest parking demand and that is in close proximity to our structures. To justify this increase of 25 cents an hour rate staff recommends installing meters that accept credit cards to improve customer service. Staff received a letter from the Downtown Association Board in support of charging for Sunday parking but opposing the creation of the `super core" rates. (Attachment 2) Staff anticipates opposition to charging for parking on Sundays from the public who attend Sunday services in,or around the downtown. 4-7 ATTACHMENT v�2 _t2- Parking Revenue Enhancements Page 2 DISCUSSION Background In 2006, the Council considered parking rate increases recommended by a task force of interested stakeholders to help fund the parking structure planned at the corner of Palm and Nipomo. One recommendation was to begin charging for parking on Sundays (on the street and in parking lots only) and to actively enforce on Sunday.This recommendation was not supported by the Council. Several other recommendations for rate increases were approved with some taking effect in 2006 and others set to occur in 2009. The approved strategy phased-in these increases to"spread"the financial impact to users. In 2009, economic issues as well as shifting best management practices prompted the Council to request that staff revisit charging for parking on Sundays and explore a higher hourly rate differential between parking structure and parking meter spaces. The economic issues included declining parking revenues due to the economy and mandatory parking fine surcharges imposed by the State and the County of San Luis Obispo, and the approval of transferring police-issued parking fines to the General Fund that reduces working capital.Other contributing issues include the eventual loss of surface parking lots for the Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces projects. These projects lower annual parking revenues for meters but will also increase parking demand. During the Parking Enterprise Fund Reviews in 2009 and 2010, staff provided Council with general information on charging for Sunday parking and for increasing parking rates to increase the differential between structures and meters. Due to concerns with the continued deepening of the recession, staff did not recommend changes at that time. Council shared this concern and twice postponed increasing 10-hour meter and structure rates from $0.75 to $1 an hour. At the 2010 Fund Review, Council asked staff to return within 6 months with more detail on charging for Sundays and for increasing the hourly rate difference between structures and parking meters in the downtown core. Sunday Parkin E Operations Parking meters were installed approximately 60 years ago. Downtown public parking in San Luis Obispo has been free on Sundays even when meters were installed and structures were built. Downtown business hours have changed dramatically during this same period from most retail businesses being closed on Sundays to most now remaining open. A key problem with free parking on Sundays is that spaces are not turning over for customers of downtown businesses like they do Monday through Saturday. Instead, many premium parking spaces are taken by employees who arrive earlier in the day and stay longer. Another issue is the fixed costs to operate and maintain these parking resources which are not captured if there is no charge for Sunday parking..The City still needs to provide for the parking itself,pay for operating it, and to maintain it. Parking structures have to be lit, elevators have to be operational, and trash must be collected. Maintenance costs include general wear and tear that over time contributes to the need to repair/replace parking facilities. Currently these costs are covered by those paying for parking from Monday to Saturday; essentially subsidizing free Sunday use. In order to assist in the analysis of considering Sunday parking operations, Table 1 shows revenue projections and costs associated with different hours and functions of parking. Should C4-8 ATTACHMENT .?-3 Parking Revenue Enhancements Page 3 Council decide to approve charging on Sundays in specific locations they have several options based on when and where parking could be charged. Table 1—Sunday Parking Options 10am-6pm I lam-6pm 12pm-6pm fpm-6pm 2pm-6pm 8 hrs 7 hrs 6 hrs 5 hrs 4 hrs HAA't. .�6.:*Kr Structures 65,800 56,400 47,000 37,600 28,200 Streets 170,800 149,450 , 128,100 106,750 85,400 Lots 57,600 50,400 43,200 36,000 28,800 Fines 51,200 44,800 38,400 32,000 25,600 Revenue Subtotal 345,400 301,050 256,,7_00 212,35_0y 168,000 MAC�a Pw�� L .YP�PI'.Y�-S Structures (21,000) (19,300) (17,500) (15,800) (9,400) Lots (13;988) (12,623) (11,219) (9,854) (9,150) Streets (26,563) (24,268) (21,856) (19,561) (17,850) Expense Subtotal (61,551) (56,191) (50,575) (45,215) (36,400) Total 283,849 244,859 206,125 167,135 131,600 The expenses assume similar costs and staffing as we have on Saturdays. This includes part-time attendants in structures and one part-time enforcement officer. There would be a one-time expense of$11,000 the first year to change structure signs, street signs, meter stickers, and to reprogram parking meters and structure devices for Sunday parking operations. The comparison chart does not include supervision or management costs that may be needed to support the expansion of parking operations which varies with each option. Staff hopes to accomplish this with existing resources. We will return at Mid-Year Review or at the 2012 Parking Fund Review should there be a need for additional supervision. For the last year staff tracked Sunday use and found that all structures are being used on Sundays with the main activity beginning around 11:00 am when most businesses open. Prior to 11:00 am there are not enough vehicles parking in our structures to justify charging. Staff looked at when downtown businesses open on Sundays and most start at 11:00 am. For these reasons, staff recommends charging from 11:00 am. to 6:00 pm. with the continuation of the first hour free in parking structures. Staff also researched comparable cities (see Table 2) and found that all of them charge for parking on Sundays. Table 2 city Charge on Sundays? Notes Avila Beach Yes in one lot during the Summer Monterey Yes in Cannery Row structures Pismo Beach Yes all locations Santa Cruz Yes in some lots and structures Santa Barbara I Yes all locations Ventura Yes Ion streets in downtown C4-9 ATTACHMENT:-- Parking Revenue Enhancements Page 4 Staff would not recommend operating less than 4 hours on Sunday because it would not be as cost effective and worth the effort for anything less than 4 hours. Temporary staffing would be problematic for shifts less than 4 hours as our attendants generally work 4-hour minimum shifts. Sunday Parking Stakeholder Notices One reason that Sunday parking was not approved when it was last considered in 2006 was because of opposition by the five churches near, or in the downtown. Due to this sensitivity, staff called and emailed a two-page document (Attachment 3) to provide notice that charging for parking on Sundays was again being considered. This will allow for the churches to provide feedback on this issue as well as the rate differential proposal. The document contained the tables,maps, staff recommendations,and rationale for the recommendations. At the time of this report we have not received feed back from the churches. When feedback is received, staff will provide Council with that information. City Council can modify the recommendation considering their feedback or public comments when this report is considered at the Council meeting. Staff is sensitive to the churches concerns and the long tradition of not charging on Sundays. However, as stated previously, the City's parking areas are used on Sundays (by both church goers and the general public) and it costs the Parking Fund to provide, operate and maintain those parking areas. The first 60 minutes are free in the City's parking structures and the majority of the church services conclude by noon. The recommendation to begin charging at 11:00 a.m will still allow for church members to park in nearby structures for as low as $0.75 for two hours,if they exit the structure before 1:00 p.m. Meter Core Rate Differential Another method to adjust area parking demand, encourage more parking in the structures, and increase revenues is to maintain or implement a higher rate differential between high demand on- street meters and structure rates. Parking demand downtown is affected by the concept of"convenient parking" near a specific location. The most convenient parking is at on-street parking spaces in the downtown core, next to a specific location someone is visiting. The next convenient areas are parking lots and then structures. Similarly, the highest demand is currently on-street parking, followed by parking lots, and then parking structures. To manage this demand the City has adopted parking rates that place a higher value on parking in these peak demand areas. Our 2-hour meter rates in the core of the downtown have always been a bit higher than those in structures.,City Council has requested a higher rate differential to provide an increased incentive to park in structures. The higher rate will conceivably shift some of the parking demand from the street to City parking lots and structures. Our current parking rates are $1.25 for 2-hour meters as compared to $0.75 per hour in structures with the frst 60 minutes free resulting in a rate differential of 50 cents per hour between peak on-street parking and parking structures. In response to the economy, for the past two years City Council has deferred scheduled rate increases for structures and 10-hour parking meters which would have been increased to $1 per hour. This would have decreased the rate differential to C4-10 ATTACHMENTa S Parking Revenue Enhancements Page 5 only 25 cents per hour. Staff believes these rate differences are not enough to encourage parking in a structure. To increase the rate differential the City could either increase on street meter rates or lower structure rates. Recent parking rate adjustments were done so that the City could afford the construction and debt service for the Palm-Nipomo parking structure. Decreasing parking rates would adversely affect the City's ability to accomplish this objective so staff does not recommend this option. To achieve a greater differential, currently the only viable option would be to increase the 2-hour parking meter rates. Staff is recommending suck an increase in a new parking meter zone—the"Super Core" New Parking Meter Zone—Super Core Some Council members and other individuals have suggested that the City create another rate level in addition to our current two-tiered downtown parking meter rates to better manage parking demand. Current tiers consist of the 2 hour meter zone ($1.25 an hour)called the"core" and the perimeter 10-hour parking meters($0.75 an hour)established for long term parkers. Figure 1 Parking(tate Zones OPrtamEe Wpnw 0.m Ma o 03Pbun.5L.24b a _ ®IO Nplt.C/Nr o Qsoun•a eR rNM1r ¢ PILL PPIm C ya PEf1U110 . A 1 OOC -p .1RYaYm .a a YnLL � 0 P.L M♦x PP O LyNag�g r tllj Flo _�._.S LANA MONrameY tlON IERfT a _ it la to O ^`1 O I � 4±pN •� -, YpflDN b = P1 P 3 O PAunC nnunc e p i p O G P 6 6 O O n a M O O i O O P19u0NIstlO M4mh -0 PaAhq o> _ ��1 SbIKP110 a 2 LI aucaon '' cmw.^nrcran.-r.. a„ ,•,e, SLOGIS Al1tt1tE The 2-hour zone is set up to encourage frequent turn-over of the parking spaces for downtown customers. In the 2-hour core, there is more parking demand in areas of higher density like Ifiguera Street between Broad and Osos Streets. Staff looked at parking demand and supports a third tier parking rate in a "super core" area priced at $1.50 an hour as shown in Figure 1 below and in Attachment 1. C4-11 ATTACHMENTc2-6 Parking Revenue Enhancements Page 6 There are approximately 400 meters in the proposed "super-core" higher rate area. Customers would have to pay more for the convenience to park in this higher-demand parking area or they can park outside of the"super-core" in the remaining 2 Hr zones or within the parking structures and not be affected. This higher rate will increase the rate differentiae between this new zone and the structures to 75 cents an hour which may lead to a small increase in structure utilization. Increasing the rates in these locations would bring in approximately, $145,000 in additional revenue. There would be costs of$1,000 to change out meter rate stickers with additional costs of processing more coins for approximately $9,000 annually. Increasing the volume of coin could trigger the need to purchase higher capacity coin vaults for $74,000 as well. From the public's perspective, the problem with increasing meter rates is it forces customers to have a lot of coins on hand. As a result, upgrading the super core meter to accept credit card payments is proposed to help reduce collection costs and allow greater customer convenience. Credit Card Acceptance As parking rates increase it requires customers to have more change available to pay for parking. At a 2-hour meter with a $1.50 rate, customers would have to have $3.00 of change to get them to the two hour limit. Local customers could obtain a meter cash key to assist in paying but the majority of people would continue to rely on change. For customer convenience, some cities have begun to replace single space meters with payment devices that accept credit cards. Staff recommends credit card acceptance at single space meters (and not at pay stations)because they are easier to enforce, take up less sidewalk space, and if one fails to operate, only one space is affected as opposed to several. Pay stations are an option but require additional enforcement on foot by parking staff that increase costs and time to circulate the downtown. Pay stations in limited areas can cause confusion to the pubic and requires addition time from the public to go to and from the station locations to obtain receipts. Credit card meters appear to be the logical next step for increased options for parking payment and enforcement that best fits our downtown parking model. Benefits of Credit Card Meters Staff recommends credit card meters because we believe they provide better customer service and lessen the likelihood of receiving a parking citation. They also reduce potential violations when a patron does not have enough coins to pay a meter and risks a time violation. Studies show that users are more inclined to pay for the maximum on the meter using a credit card than one that accepts coins only. Other cities have seen 20 to 30% increases in parking meter revenues with credit card acceptance. Credit card acceptance decreases parking enforcement because customers can pay for the maximum time with this method of payment. It also lowers the cost of collecting coins, processing coins, and of annual battery changes due to these being solar powered. Higher initial purchase and on-going operational costs for communication and credit card processing are expected to be offset by the increased revenues and reduced costs of processing coins. These meters also offer benefits of being solar powered and being networked wirelessly. Rate changes can be done by an office computer as opposed to going meter to meter with a communication device. More detailed financial data is provided for types of payments and frequency of payments. If the meter is inoperable it sends email alerts to predetermined parking staff. Cost of Credit Card Meters C4-12 J ATTACHMENT ENT Parking Revenue Enhancements Page 7 There are several companies offering single-space parking meters that accept credit cards. To provide the City Council with an understanding of credit card meter costs, the following two tables are provided. The fust table represents the initial capital cost for the meters, training, and synchronization of the meters. The second table shows the on-going annual costs as compared to revenues. Staff used the cost of providing all 400 meters for this example. Council can decide to phase in these meters at lower quantity than 400. Ca ital Costs 1" IPS solar powered credit card meter _ 400 $495 $198,000 $198,000 Tax $16,335 $16,335 Installation and Training 400 $2,000 $2,000 RAD synchronization 400 $15.00 $6,000 $6,000 Total $510 $222,335_ $222335 In comparison, our standard digital parking meter and housings cost approximately $400 each plus tax. On-Goine Costs&Revenue Secure wireless gateway/data fee 400 $3.75 $1,500 18,000 12,000 Management system license fee 400 $2.00 $800 9,600 6,400 Credit card transaction fee 400 $0.13 $1,300 15,600 10,400 Credit card discount rate 400 1.93% $394 4,725 3,150 Offset for Coin collections 400 (18,000) (12,000) Offset for Coin counting 400 3,600 2,400 Cost Subtotal 26 325 17,550. @ven_�.E�t►mate .. ..:.. ` .>.�`,��^'j:'.M_ ��:;,:�-_'. fiat`g� � .' Qnthty°� >,r��'. �nt3al,_ " -';FYC„,,.:. Meter Revenue Estimate $1.50 rate 400 $51.00 $20,400 244,800 163,200" Total 218,4751 145,650 Notes:First Year Costs represent eight(g)months only due to four month implementation period. First year implementation costs and revenue will be slightly lower due to up front capital costs and the need to implement the meters over the first four month period. There will be annual costs of approximately $47,925 for the communication and credit card fees that are offset by $21,600 for the reduced costs for collecting and processing coins. This brings the annual on- going costs to $26,325 with net additional parking revenues of $218,475. This annual cost is roughly 12%of the net revenue taken in. The estimated revenues assume the proposed$1.50 rate amount which helps to pay for the capital costs of the meters and justifies the increase with improved customer service. Actual revenues could be higher than projected because the customer has the ability to pay using a credit card. Other cities that utilize credit card meters have found that customers are more willing to pay for the maximum meter time on a credit card, because they are not limited by the amount of change they have available. Customers also appreciate having another method of payment that significantly lowers their chance at getting a parking citation. C4-13 U O ATTACHMENT Parking Revenue Enhancements Page 8 CONCURRENCES Staff presented the staff recommendations to the Downtown Association Parking & Access Committee. The Committee supported both recommendations in this report. The Downtown Association Board of Directors reviewed the Parking & Access Committee recommendation on March 8, 2011, and voted to support Sunday parking but not to support the higher rate differential.The Downtown Association letter is attached to this report. Staff provided another two-page document containing the tables, maps, staff recommendations, and rationale for the recommendations to the,Chamber of Commerce. At the time of completing this report staff did not receive any feedback from the Chamber. When and if that feedback is received staff will provide Council with that information. FISCAL IMPACT The reason that charging on Sundays and higher rates are being considered is to help provide funding for eventual construction and debt service for the next parking structure that will be necessary to handle changes in parking demand. The Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces redevelopment projects will eliminate parking meters and reduce annual meter revenues. The projects will also increase parking demand triggering the need for the Palm-Nipomo parking structure. The table below summarizes the revenues and offsetting costs of the recommendations of this report. Revenue Enhancements 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year Sunday Revenues 301,050 304,061 307,101 Sunday Expenses (56,191 57,315) (58,461 subtotal 244,859 246,746 248,640 Credit Card Meter Revenues 163,200 247,046 249,516 Credit Card Meter Expenses239,885 26,852 32,222 subtotal (76,685) 220,195 217,295 Total Revenues 168,174 466,940 465,935 Note:Assumes typical increase of 1%per year in revenues and 2%increase in expenses. Depending upon final Council approval of Sunday Service and the super core rates, staff will return as part of the Parking Fund Review in May with the enacting ordinances and resolutions. ALTERNATIVES 1. Do not charge for parking on Sunday. This option is not recommended because the parking facilities are being used and impacted by wear and tear. There could be significant opposition from certain stakeholders about charging for parking on Sundays. 2. Charge for different times on Sundays but not less than four hours. Staff provided alternative times in Table 1,should City Council decide on different hours. C4-14 ATTACHMENTILL Parking Revenue Enhancements Page 9 3. Phase in 100 new credit card meters. This alternative provides a smaller amount of credit card meters. It still justifies the higher rate increase to pay for the cost of the new meter and associated on-going communication and credit card costs. It would allow for staff to evaluate the public's acceptance and to see if the revenues and costs are what were expected. This would not meet the intended objective to encourage more parking in our structures because only 100 would have the higher rate. The other 300 meters would only have a 50 cent differential in the rates. 4. Do not add another zone of parking and increase all 2-hour meters in the core from $1.25 to $1.50. This would be beneficial to encourage parking in the structure but may be viewed as excessively raising parking rates. This would bring in approximately $135,600 in additional revenues but increase coin collection and coin handling costs due to the higher volume of coin. Due to increase in the volume of coin this rate increase may trigger the need to add larger coin vaults at $185 per meter. If all 400 meters in the core were converted to a larger vault this would cost$74,000. 5. Establish a flat rate in the 842 Palm Street Parking Structure.Analysis of the amount of time vehicles occupy the parking structure shows that the most motorists exit the structure within two hours and either pay nothing or $0.75 to $1.50. The City could try to offer a flat $2 rate in the 842 Palm parking structure without 60 minutes free. The 842 Palm structure has the lowest over-all use. The purpose of the flat rate is to encourage long term parking in this structure and possibly make more revenues than this structure receives currently. The reasons this alternative is not recommended are the economic benefit is unknown and it could be confusing to the public to have different payment methodologies with our other structures. Establishing a flat rate in all structures is not recommended because all structure use is not alike. A $2 flat rate would mean a reduction in the monthly parking rates for the Marsh and 919 Palm structures which are $75 a month. A$2 flat rate works out to be around $40 a month. No additional staffing would be needed but potential revenues are unforeseeable because we have never used this type of pricing model. 6. Explore other revenue enhancements. Council may want to consider other methods to increase parking revenues to ensure funding for the Palm-Nipomo parking structure. Most of these ideas have been considered by previous Councils,but not adopted. These ideas will no have an impact on encouraging more parking in our structures which was one of the objectives for having a higher rate differential. Estimated Revenues a. Eliminate first 60 minutes free in structure $180,000 b. Increase daily hours of operation from 6 pm to 8 pm $300,000 c. Add meters on 600 Block of Palm Street $10,440 d. Add meters on the 1000 blocks of Pacific and Peach $22,320 c. Add meters on Monterey(Toro to California) $25,000 f. Expand In-Lieu district above Santa Rosa unknown g. Add permit parking on Slack/Hathway $14,760 h. Add permit parking on California between Hathway and Foothill $7,326 C4-15 ATTACHMENT a % Parking Revenue Enhancements Page 10 All estimates do not include the capital costs to implement these changes and show the second year revenues. ATTACHMENTS 1. Map of Meter Super Core 2. Example -Notice Letter to Churches 3. Downtown Association Board of Directors letter. T:\Council Agenda Reports\Public Works CAR\2011\Parking\Pkg Rev Enhancements\CAR Sunday Pkg Higher Rate Diff v2 JW.doc C4-16