Technology Costs Money …


Charles J. DeBow, Parking Manager for the Borough of State College, PA: The new technology, sensors, credit card meters, kiosks, etc., all cost money. People want these options, but they do not want rates to increase. Pay-and-display basically has “meter reset,” and the increases in revenue help offset the costs.


Yes, I know, people pay more when using a credit card, but the way I look at it, that is their choice to ensure they don’t get a ticket. They are paying for “peace of mind.”


To have meter reset, you need a sensor, and at $20-$30 per space/month, you need a revenue stream to pay for it. How do we do that, especially in markets where the rate is $1/hour or less? There are only two options: meter reset or increased enforcement, because we should become more effective with the sensors. Your argument of credit card (CC) meters’ skyrocketing


revenue is true only with meter reset. If they pay the maximum and stay only a short time, the next car will still use the time that is left. Plus, CC meters are extremely expensive. The LA’s, Philadelphia’s and NYC’s of the world can afford this based on their rates. The little guys have to be a bit more creative to pay for the technology that people see in these big cities and expect everywhere; sometimes it’s the only way they can afford it. Now this doesn’t mean you just start resetting meters. Engage the community, tell them that meter reset is being used to help pay for the technology, and you may find yourself on right side of a news article – win-win.


I do not think you get good PR by leaving it. You get a little bad PR when you use meter reset, but it goes away. And like I said, with a little upfront work, you may find that people are OK with it.


••• But What About ROI?


Brandy Stanley, Parking Services Manager for the City of Las Vegas: CJD hits the nail on the head. This stuff is expensive to buy


and operate. Communications costs, credit card fees, maintenance, etc., drive operating costs way up. If you want to focus on generating revenue through compliance, you need to make it easy and convenient to pay, which means accepting credit cards at all your meters.


That reduces your ticket count (and citation revenue), so how do you replace that revenue and cover the increased costs of providing customer service? One way is to reset the meters – and it’s not a few pennies; the industry standard is a 20% to 30% increase, which is substantial.


Even this may not be enough to cover the increased operating costs and loss of citation revenue. Just because we’re the government doesn’t mean we have an excuse to completely ignore cost recovery on a major investment. We may have different ROI standards and a different focus on the value of an investment than the private sector, but we also have a fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers that we ignore at our peril.


There is typically some bad PR to start, but you can


Parking Today www.parkingtoday.com


help offset that by telling customers you’re making it easier to pay and less likely they’ll get ticketed. What meter system can you put in, resetting or not, that doesn’t generate some degree of bad PR? Pick your poison.


JVH responds: Good arguments, Charlie and Brandy. However, I’m not convinced on the loss of citation revenue. If we assume that half of the citations that could be written aren’t – and I think in most cities that number is closer to 90%, then stepping up enforcement could make up for the folks who pay the maximum and thus don’t get citations. Of course, in the end, are we here to generate revenue, or to change habits and protect a valuable parking asset? We all know that answer: on the record, change and protect; off the record, revenue, revenue, revenue.


Charlie says: JVH, so you want me not to have the bad PR with meter reset but increase tickets? That’s even worse PR! Actual capture rate is closer to 4% to 7%, proven by sensors, including the ones I have, and what the sensor company is telling me from other cities.


We can not turn a blind eye to revenue. Proper programs


require proper fiscal responsibility to make sure we can pay for the technology, and to make sure we never spend a single taxpayer penny.


We all know that answer: on the record, change and protect; off the record, revenue, revenue, revenue.


JVH responds to Charlie: Huh! I’m not saying you increase your number of citations written; just keep the number the same. Even though people will perhaps pay the full fee when they park only part of the time allowed, there will be certainly many others who will break parking rules.


And, yes, parking needs to pay for itself, and if the technology used costs more, then more needs to be collected. However, we both know that in well-run parking operations, the income far exceeds the costs.


Where does that money go? Does it go into the neighborhoods where it came from for better lighting, streets and sidewalks? Or does it go into the General Fund? What happens in State College, Charlie? … Charlie answers:


In State College, it goes to the General Fund. We do not earmark funds, and I will try to explain why. Many of our Capital Plan Projects and most of our normal operating expenses can be directly attributed to the downtown.


But our tax revenue comes mainly from our neighborhoods. That’s because our tax base in the downtown is mostly non-income students. We far outspend our tax and parking revenues that are generated from the downtown. Basically, parking revenue goes right back into the downtown.


I just can’t tell you that it was for a specific lighting or sidewalk project. Make sense? So, in my view, although we do not specifically say parking is spent on the lights and streets, it is, as it should be. This is where I disagree with [Urban Planning Professor Donald] Shoup. His model works great in larger cities where there can be “districts,” and the money generated in District A can stay in District A and not be spent in Districts B-F. I have only one district.


Continued on Page 30 29


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64