PAY AND DISPLAY IMPLEMENTATION

MISE EN PLACE DISTRIBUTRICES DE BILLETS POUR STATIONNEMENT

ACS2008-PWS-TRF-0007            City-wide/ à l'échelle de la Ville

 

Michael Flainek, Director of Traffic and Parking Operations, presented an extensive and collaborative PowerPoint presentation, which is held on file with the City Clerk.  He was accompanied by the following staff, who also assisted with questions:

 

Allan Shields, the self-professed “Parking Angel”, stated his support for Pay and Display, commenting tourists require at least two hours of metered parking in the Market.  He asked for improvements in service, including additional change machines.  Mr. Shields also called for a stop to overzealous ticketing.

 

Tom Keely and Luigi Lata, Precise ParkLink provided a PowerPoint presentation, which is held on file with the City Clerk.  The main points addressed were the following:

 

In response to questions from Councillor Legendre, Precise ParkLink indicated it is willing to back-end payment for the machines, which would carry less risk.  The proponent could recuperate costs over ten years. Front-ending would guarantee revenues at the outset.  Mr. Keely asserted the equipment would be maintained at the most state of the art technology for the full period of the 10-year term of the proposed contract.

 

Mr. Flainek explained that over the next few months, staff will be analyzing the Precise ParkLink proposal and ensuring these aspects are in place.

 

Rob Wilkinson, Cale Systems suggested the City would be effectively eliminating far better solutions by approving the departmental recommendations.  He questioned whether Ottawa Option criteria were met.  He noted the contract period is long and technology can change rapidly, suggesting the pricing is inflated.  He advanced that legal challenges might occur with respect to the Ottawa Option, suggesting it is in the City’s best interest to proceed with the current process.  A copy of Mr. Wilkinson’s letter is also held on file with the City Clerk.

 

In response to a question from Councillor Bédard with respect to innovation, Mr. Wilkinson opined that the Ottawa Option does the opposite by excluding other more innovative solutions.  He suggested that the stipulation that Precise ParkLink can match any other submission precludes such submissions.

 

Mr. O’Connor advised that the current process already underway is less flexible as the parameters have already been set and submissions must be done within that framework.  He then explained the process that would occur under the Ottawa Option.

 

Councillor Cullen noted that Cale Systems was a participant in the RFP/RFQ process.  Mr. Wilkinson explained they proposed two types of machines, including a new platform to provide additional services through the same infrastructure. Their proposals also included project financing, including spreading cost over time and matching revenues to expenses.  All aspects of the project could be incorporated.  Repayment could be structured in such a way as to mirror or match the incremental revenue or revenue objectives of the City.  

 

In response to further questions from Committee, Mr. O’Connor indicated any other competitors wanting to try and come forward to match or beat the original proposal, must show that they are more innovative, a key criteria of the Ottawa Option.  He confirmed another option would be to end the current process and start anew.  Mr. Ford noted a new process would take approximately six to eight months to complete.  Mr. O’Connor stated there is no significant difference in terms of timeframe between the Ottawa Option and the commencement of a new procurement process.  The Ottawa Option would include up to three decision points by Council.  Collective agreement provisions must be adhered to and CUPE 503 could also submit a bid.

 

In reply to questions from Councillor Legendre, Mr. Wilkinson confirmed his firm could compete with Precise ParkLink with respect to technology, suggesting the other firm is already behind the technology curve.

 

Lori Mellor, Preston Business Improvement Area (BIA), congratulated Council for considering a public/private partnership option to manage the City’s parking operations, but expressed concerns with entering into negotiations without the existence of a comprehensive parking strategy, which could include the creation of a Parking Authority and a parking audit.  The Preston BIA agrees that Pay and Display is an improvement over parking meters, as they eliminate sidewalk clutter, allowing more cars to park within the same space and offer more payment options.  Ms. Mellor questioned the need to move too quickly and the length of the proposed term. 

 

In reply to a question from Chair McRae, she confirmed the BIA is in support of stopping the current RFP to allow for more time to consider the best options and the development of a comprehensive parking strategy where the City defines its own needs and requirements.

 

Mr. O’Connor clarified that Motion 26/53 directed staff to bring forward a business case for the Pay and Display machines to LRFP sub-committee and Council prior to setting the tax rate, which was not achieved due to the complexity of the issue.  The issue of the Parking Authority will be examined as part of the mid-term governance review.  He suggested the policy and proposal are not mutually exclusive and can proceed separately.

 

Mr. Hewitt added the department is working aggressively to respond to those other parking issues.  Technology is less directly related and can move forward in accordance with the direction of Council.  He stated staff would involve stakeholders throughout the process and the study would be brought forward prior to the next budget cycle.

 

Michel McDonald, Vice-President, ParkSmart, referred to his submission, which is held on file with the City Clerk.   He noted ParkSmart was awarded the contract, which was recently renewed, to provide parking ticket processing services.  He expressed concern that the City would limit for the most innovative solutions, including the provision of payment collection.  He called for the City to allow competing bids, not within the framework of the Ottawa Option.  He referenced various contracts and work his firm has concluded with the City.

 

In response to questions from Committee, he confirmed the following:

·        ParkSmart did participate in the RFQ process.

·        It works with Cale and operates 250 parking lots, primarily in the greater Toronto Area.

·        The Ottawa Option should not be pursued, as it does not allow for the types of services his firm proposes to offer and other innovative bids.  It also does not provided assurances to bidders that their proposal will be looked at on their own merit.

 

Gordon Cooke, Electromega, referenced his 35 years experience in parking and traffic operations with a well-established company with over 50 employees.  He asked for a level playing field through an RFP process. 

 

In response to a question from the Chair, he advised that his firm could respond to an RFP within 30 days.  Mr. Ford confirmed an RFP process could be completed within five to six months.

 

Gerry Lepage, Bank Street Promenade did not comment on the specific proposals, but questioned the expedience in dealing with this issue when Council has recently directed that a Parking Strategy be undertaken.  He criticized the Ottawa Option, suggesting it is seldom used and referenced.  He asked what the City has to lose by simply taking the higher road by going on a fair and equitable basis with an RFP of which all proponents are willing to accept the decision.  He also deplored that stakeholders were not informed of this proposal.

 

Mr. Kirkpatrick reminded Committee of the goals and objectives of the Ottawa Option and re-iterated staff’s view that the Precise ParkLink proposal met the requirements of the Ottawa Option, as currently defined.  With regards to the issue of consultation, he maintained staff clearly understand the need for consulting with stakeholders in the development of an overall parking policy that would deal with issues of governance, pricing arrangements and other details.  He submitted that the issue of converting the existing technology on the streets, from what was currently in place to Pay and Display, was a policy decision Council had made.

 

Responding to questions from Councillor Leadman, Mr. Lepage confirmed his issue was not with regard to the pay and display machines but with the fairness of the process.  He confirmed his concurrence with the points made by Ms. Mellor and explained that he simply chose to comment on a different component.  He submitted this related to the potential for alternative service delivery and that it would limit the City with respect to the type of strategy it would employ in the future.

 

In response to follow-up questions from Councillor Leadman, Mr. Kirkpatrick maintained this would not preclude the development and implementation of a City-wide parking policy. 

 

Pierre Veillette, J.J MacKay Canada Ltd., General Manager for Central Canada, outlined in his experience in the parking industry and echoed comments made by other industry representatives; that this was an unfair situation.  He noted the original process was going forward through an RFI where a company submitted information about their products, then there was a RFQ from which four companies made a shortlist.

 

Jasna Jennings, By-Ward BIA, expressed concern with the pace of this issue and the absence of a Comprehensive Parking Strategy.  The BIA has serious concerns regarding what parameters, guidelines and policies will govern and guide the Precise ParkLink proposal.  She said that parking is one of the most important factors in a business district.  She urged the City to move forward with the comprehensive parking strategy before pursuing any such proposal.

 

Councillor Bédard pointed out the City could lose $1.5 million if it were to reject the proposal or delay the process.

 

Mr. Bourns stated Calgary’s model is being developed to provide a range of services.  The system is not fully operational yet; however, some approaches cannot be followed in Ontario; as the parking ticket must be placed on the vehicle at the time of an offence.

 

Robert Diotte suggested parking is equal to power and is not just a management issue.  He noted technology is evolving quickly, practically eclipsing pay and display machines. He encouraged Committee to delay a decision, which would be best for all parties. 

 

In response to a question from Councillor Leadman, he advanced that legislation could be changed within a maximum of two to three years, which would allow the City to pursue similar technology that is being developed in Calgary.

 

Councillor Legendre sought clarification to determine if the proposal did meet the criteria of the Ottawa Option.  Ms. Simulik specified that the financial aspects are innovative as the proponent is assuming the risk.  Mr. O’Connor indicated the only other experience with the Ottawa Option was the September 2004 decision by Council with respect to the unsolicited proposal for street light maintenance for Black and McDonald.

 

With respect to the other criteria set out in the Ottawa Option, Mr. Kirkpatrick stated the acquisition of hardware and other aspects of the operation and management were not contemplated under the current process.  The notions of risk sharing and alternative financing were not part of the current RFQ process and the City did not contemplate contracting out all aspects of Pay and Display.

 

In reply to questions from Councillor Bloess, Mr. O’Connor confirmed next steps should the departmental recommendations be approved. 

 

Staff responded to questions from Councillor Leadman, noting there is a substantial risk to the proponent with guaranteed revenues and the possible inability to recover all capital costs.  Councillor Leadman questioned the assessment that risk is high in an environment where the City can generate significant revenues.  Mr. Kirkpatrick reiterated that a decision with regard to Pay and Display would not have a major impact on the policy decisions that Council will make in the future.

 

After further clarification on points referenced above, Councillor Doucet presented the following motion, with a friendly amendment from Councillor Legendre inserted as Recommendation 3(e).

 

Whereas the City deems it appropriate to change the scope of the RFQ process for the acquisition of Pay and Display parking machines to include the acquisition of any and all related services in addition to Pay and Display parking machines or other similar goods and services;

 

And whereas the City considers it appropriate to initiate a new process for this expanded requirement in order to ensure that all interested vendors have an opportunity to participate.

 

Therefore Be It Resolved That the Transportation Committee Recommends that Council:

 

1.                  Reject the proposal from Precise Parklink Inc. to implement Pay and Display technology in the City of Ottawa under the framework of the Ottawa Option.

 

2.                  Terminate the City’s existing Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process for the acquisition of Pay and Display parking payment systems.

 

3.                  Direct staff to immediately develop and initiate a new competitive procurement process for Pay and Display parking machines and operational services and/or other similar goods and services which would include the following parameters:

 

a)      the process would encourage the maximum participation from the vendor community;

b)      innovative financing or acquisition options for the goods and services would be sought;

c)      any projected revenues or savings to the City would be guaranteed through appropriate financial and/or other commitments; and,

d)      risks to both the vendor and the City in any proposed business relationship would be clearly outlined and be appropriate in the circumstances.

e) the process would encourage modern customer convenience features, provide for servicing ease as well as ease of upgrading the technology.

 

Following debate, the Committee proceeded to a recorded vote beginning with the departmental recommendations.

 

That staff be directed to proceed with the negotiations with Precise Parking regarding their proposal to implement Pay and Display technology in the City of Ottawa, under the framework of an Ottawa Option.

 

                        CARRIED

 

YEAS (6):        Bédard, Bloess, Thompson, Wilkinson, O'Brien, McRae

NAYS (4):       Cullen, Doucet, Leadman, Legendre

 

 

That the Request for Proposals process for the acquisition of Pay and Display machines be suspended.

 

                        CARRIED

 

YEAS (8):        Bédard, Bloess, Leadman; Legendre, Thompson; Wilkinson, O'Brien, McRae

NAYS (2):       Cullen, Doucet

 

The Doucet motion was deemed defeated.

 

That the Transportation Committee recommend Council approve :

 

1.         That staff be directed to proceed with the negotiations with Precise Parking regarding their proposal to implement Pay and Display technology in the City of Ottawa, under the framework of an Ottawa Option.

 

2.         That the Request for Proposals process for the acquisition of Pay and Display machines be suspended.

 

                        CARRIED