The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2020-08-11 Select Board PacketDementia Friendly Reading Agenda 1.What is Dementia? 2.Reading’s Response to Dementia 3.Dementia Friendly Reading 4.Accomplishments 5.Dementia Friendly MA Pledge Dementia Defined Dementia is not a specific disease. -It's an overall term that describes a wide range of symptoms associated with a decline in memory or other thinking skills severe enough to reduce a person's ability to perform everyday activities. -Alzheimer's disease accounts for 60 to 80 percent of dementia cases. Some conditions creating dementia symptoms are reversible -Thyroid, UTI, medications, nutrition. Dementia in Reading and Beyond Reading •15.2%* of Residents 65+ have received a diagnosis of dementia •Senior population is anticipated to grow significantly by 2030 –60+ will be around 8,000 residents *Tufts Foundation Healthy Aging Report 2015 Society Impact •Approximately ¼ of dementia caregivers are “sandwich generation” caregivers •250,000 children (8 –18) provide help to someone with Alzheimer’s or another dementia •$34 Billion is lost annually to businesses due to caregiving responsibility Nation-Wide •More than 5 million Americans have Alzheimer’s Disease •5%have younger-onset •60% live in their own homes •1 in 3 seniors dies with a form of dementia Response to the Need: A Dementia Friendly Community National Response: Dementia Friendly America Dementia Friendly Reading •Grassroots effort led by the Council on Aging, Reading Elder Human Services & DKJ Foundation March 2017 Sept. 2017 Nov. 2017 Jan. 2018 May 2018 COA evaluated programs: Dementia Friendly Approach Joint meeting w/DKJ Foundation Convene community leaders Form Leadership Team Received $4,000 grant from MCOA Reading’s Response •Leadership Team –Meets Monthly •COA, DKJ Foundation, Public Safety, Library, Assisted Living Communities, Chamber of Commerce, Banking, Legal, Elder Human Services, Reading Public Schools •Funding •DKJ Foundation •MCOA grant •Ongoing grant research •NO town funds being used •Project Manager Hired •Mission Statement •Strategic Plan •Branding Reading’s Response: Ongoing since 2018 To establish Reading as a town that empowers those with dementia and their caregivers to feel valued and actively engaged in our community. RECOGNIZE/RESPECT/REIMAGINE www.dfreading.org RECOGNIZE RESPECT REIMAGINE Spread awareness about dementia and inform the community on resources to become dementia- friendly Ensure individuals living with dementia feel welcomed, valued and engaged. Fight the stigma of dementia. Help those living with dementia and their caregivers feel supported in our community. DEMENTIA FRIENDLY READING AccomplishmentsPartners –Alzheimer’s Organization (programming) –Dementia Friends USA (programming) –Reading Elder Services Division (programs and services) •Memory Café •Respite Care Program •Case Management and Nursing Support •Dementia/Wander Information -RPD •Educational Programming –Mass. Council on Aging/Executive Office of Elder Affairs Accomplishments •300 individuals attended Dementia Friends Workshops •13 businesses/organizations recognized by Dementia Friendly Reading: –Artis Senior Living –Burbank YMCA –Lee Kimball –Northern Bank, Reading Branch –Peter Sanborn Place –Reading Animal Clinic –Reading Fire Department –Reading Pleasant Street Center –Reading Police Department/Dispatch –Reading Public Library –Reading Rotary –Salem Five Bank, Reading Branch –The Law Office of Brian Snell Accomplishments •Web Site Presence •Social Media Outlets –Instagram, Facebook, Twitter •E-newsletters •2 Family and Friends Day •2 Street Fairs •Reading Health Fair •Featured in The Chronicle and The Readings Magazine •Memory Garden Tribute •Mini-Golf Event at Senior Center •COVID Response –Virtual Trainings –Senior Pals Program –Launching Sept. 2020 The Pledge –Town Leadership Support –Reading to be recognized by the state of Massachusetts as a community that supports residents living and caring for those with dementia and memory loss. Downtown Parking Potential System Modifications Overview for Select Board January 21, 2020 Updated February 4, 2020 & August 11, 2020 Cross-Disciplinary Team (PTTTF: Parking Traffic Transportation Task Force) •Management –Bob LeLacheur, Jean Delios •Planning / Economic Development –Julie Mercier, Erin Schaeffer, Andrew MacNichol •DPW / Engineering –Jane Kinsella, Chris Cole, Ryan Percival •Public Safety –PD: David Clark, Christine Amendola, Michael Scouten –FD: Paul Jackson Sources •Maps & Data: Downtown Reading Parking Study – 2018 Assessment, prepared by Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc.; 2019 Parking Survey •Anecdotal Information: Stakeholder feedback at public meetings; conversations with Police Dept. •Philosophy & Opportunities: based on industry practice and recommendations of Nelson\Nygaard 2018 Assessment Tonight’s Presentation •Systemwide Modifications –Brief Overview of Phase I •Concerns & Staff Responses –Outreach –Kiosks –Employees –Customers –Residents & Commuters •Phase II proposal –Safety & Accessibility –Other Considerations •Implementation Decisions & Timeline •PTTTF Request of Select Board –More feedback,please! Systemwide Modifications [Brief Overview of Phase I] Geography INNER CORE (orange) OUTER CORE (pink) User / Component Pros Considerations [SCENARIO based on STATED PHILOSOPHY] Makes sense for all-day users to park further out. Anyone who wants to park closer can pay in lot. Town assessing lighting and sidewalk upgrades, will need to decide whether to stripe spaces or just add signage to newly regulated areas. Community Access "loophole" will be closed in Downtown North. All-day parkers will be relocated out of Downtown North to free up spaces. Commuters will still be able to park in Downtown South or in MBTA lots.*** / Impacts to commuters and neighborhoods will be assessed in Phase II. Eliminates single user spaces & 'adds' supply to system. Removes 'privatization of public spaces'. Residents who want to park on-street will be able to outside of regulated hours. Regulated hours need to be determined. LEASING EMPLOYEES RESIDENTS COMMUTERS (1) Redistribute Employee Parking to Outer Core / (2) Expand Areas where Employees can park / (3) Increase # of Employee Permits available / (4) Offer Employee Permits for FREE (1) "Resident Only" (residents or resident commuters) & Town- controlled Commuter parking relocated out of Downtown North / (2) Phase II - Commuter Impacts to be evaluated Abolish Program & Re-allocate spaces: High Street (41) = "Public 2 Hr or All Day with Employee Permit" / Brande Court (4) = public (kiosk) / Harnden/Union (13) = Police Dept? (1) Remove "Resident Only" regulation in Inner Core / (2) Price Community Access Permit competitively w/MBTA pricing / (3) 9-11 Gould Street permit remains / (4) No Changes to Downtown South / (5) Phase II - evaluate Resident Permit Spaces will be available to short-term users of all types, but not to commuters b/c of 2 Hr restriction. (Community Access "loophole" will be closed in Downtown North.) Changes Defined as: Area bounded by Woburn/Main/High* Defined as: Streets emanating 1- 2 blocks outward from Inner Core** Regulations: All streets changed to "Public 2 Hr" or "Public 30 Min"; remove "Resident Only" and "Employee Permit" areas; "No Parking" areas will remain; Payment Kiosks added to CVS & Brande Ct Lots; 9-11 Gould St permit remains Regulations: All streets changed to "Public 2 Hr or All Day with Employee Permit"; remove "Resident Only" areas; Add/formalize spaces east of Main on Green & Bolton, and north of Woburn on Linden & Sanborn; "No Parking" areas will remain PUBLIC Provides more spaces for short-term users & empowers longer-term users to pay-to-stay. Cost escalation will disincentivize employees from parking in lot all day. (1) Inner Core changed to "Public 2 HR" or "Public 30 Min" in some areas / (2) Kiosks put in CVS & Brande Court Lots - no time limit, but cost escalation after 4 hours^ Need to discuss timeframe for regulations. Could be limited: 10:00 AM - 4:00 PM or more broad: 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM or something in between. Concerns*& Staff Responses *We also received a lot of positive comments from various user types which I’m happy to share if requested. Outreach •What lessons can we learn from other towns? –Staff met with: •Arlington Transportation Planner & ED Director –2/13 •Waltham Traffic Engineer & Asst. to Traffic Engineer –3/11 →Feedback summarized by staff in document dated 3/12/20 •We need more feedback from businesses & residents. –Staff attended Chamber event at Tin Bucket –2/25 –Staff reviewed all correspondence from businesses –ongoing –Staff followed up with PDA Dental at their office –3/10 →All feedback incorporated herein –Staff held Zoom meetings with businesses –8/4 & 8/5 –Staff held a Zoom meeting with residents –8/6 →Feedback still being compiled Kiosks •Length of Free Period –15 minutes is too short →Increase to 30 minutes →Allow businesses to validate (for customers only) •Privacy & Security –What kind of data is collected with Pay-by-Plate? →License plate, length of stay, amount paid –no personal information •User Challenges –Teenagers can’t be bothered →Pay/program remotely with an App –Elderly won’t be able to navigate them, don’t have smart phones, may be on fixed income →Different payment options will be available; on-street parking & HC spaces will remain free; businesses will be able to validate for customers •Up-Front & Ongoing Costs –Pricing scenario to recoup costs →See compiled information from Nelson Nygaard dated 3/12/20 →Paid parking typically results in more revenue than towns anticipate The goals of paid parking kiosks are: to influence user behavior, to create turnover & availability of spaces in prime locations, and to improve the user experience of downtown Reading. Employees •Employee Permits/Spaces –Not enough permits or spaces →Outer Core can accommodate ~200 more formal spaces (and permits) –Don’t want to walk too far, especially at night and in winter →Outer Core is 1-2 blocks from Inner Core; safety improvements under consideration –Why pay if space not guaranteed? →Employee Permit can be free •Funerals & Churchgoers –They often use spaces proposed for Employee Parking –How will regulations impact them? →Funeral parlors can reserve spaces whatever the regulations may be; churchgoers can use “Public 2 Hour” spaces if available. →Opportunity: some churches downtown have expressed willingness to work with Town to allow their lots to be used by businesses, employees, etc. •Shared Parking Agreements –Not enough parking? Empty lots nearby? →Staff are working on a shared parking agreement, and are facilitating coordination between private entities (i.e., Haven Street businesses and Sanborn Street lot owner). Customers •Brande Court & CVS Lots –Not enough turnover →Paid parking kiosks should influence behavior and help turnover = more spaces available –4 hour spaces used all day by employees, may be used by commuters if no time limit →Would cost $15.50/day for employee or commuter to park all day (8:00-6:00 w/30 mins free) •Leakage –Will paid parking discourage patronization of Reading businesses? →Paid parking is proposed in lots only; on-street parking will still be free →Allow businesses to validate (for customers only) •Need more Short-Term Parking –Not enough 15 or 30 minute spaces →Staff can assess where to add more, Police prefer 30 minute spaces over 15 minute spaces Residents & Commuters •Resident Only Areas –Opinions of residents are mixed →Inner Core proposal still allows resident use for all but 4 hours per day →Outer Core proposal is effectively more limiting on resident use b/c it allows employee parking all day •Impacts on Commuters & Neighborhoods –Removing these areas may discourage commuting and/or push commuters further into residential neighborhoods to the north and south →See staff proposal for Phase II –Commuter Impacts Phase II –Commuter Impacts Evaluate Impacts of Phase I on Commuters & Neighborhoods NB: Low usage of commuter lots due to COVID-19 may give us breathing room between Phase I and Phase II What we know now: Potential # of Commuters displaced by Phase I: 150 Streets that may be impacted: Downtown North Mount Vernon, High, Dudley, Grand, Deering, School, Middlesex, Bancroft Downtown South Prescott, Pratt, Woburn, Temple, Sunnyside, Riverside, Warren, Center, etc. Phase II –Commuter Impacts Prior to Roll Out of Phase I: •Outreach to all users, including Commuters, to alert them to Phase I →very important •Education about other locations for commuter parking (i.e., currently unregulated areas in nearby neighborhoods) After Roll Out of Phase I: •PTTTF monthly assessment of complaints, tickets, user issues related to all Systemwide Modifications, with focus on commuters and neighborhoods •Utilization analysis focused on unregulated neighborhood streets •Survey commuters about parking and alternative long-term solutions such as remote parking w/shuttle service •Consider adding Resident Only regulations to unregulated streets, removing Resident Only regulations entirely, AND/OR modifying Resident Community Access Permit →more information needed Safety & Accessibility •Sidewalks & Pedestrian Access –Safety improvements and upgrades may be needed →Engineering is still completing an inventory of sidewalk deficiencies •Lighting –Additional lighting is needed in certain areas →Police & DPW put together recommendations for the Inner and Outer Cores •Snow Removal Policy –Need to clarify expectations for residents and businesses →DPW / Engineering still gathering & evaluating policies of surrounding towns •Accessibility –Do we have enough handicap spaces? →2019 Engineering Analysis: public lots and Main Street have enough; additional spaces will be added to Haven Street as part of streetscape project Other Considerations •EV Charging Stations →Agree this is important but feel a needs assessment would be helpful before we dedicate parking spaces to EV Charging •Compact Spaces →Can be considered next time lots are repaved or restriped •Temporary Parking for Construction Workers →Staff have a process for this as well as off-site suggestions •Bike Racks →Staff are working to increase inventory downtown •Wayfinding Signage →18 new Parking signs will be installed downtown soon! Implementation Decisions 1.Abolish Leasing –Details: 58 public spaces leased to 10 different private entities –Locations: High Street (41), Brande Court Lot (4), Harnden Street (13) –Why: Eliminates ‘privatization of public space’, increases public supply →Decision 1: abolish leasing. 2.Employee Permit spaces redistributed & expanded –Details: PD issues ~145 permits for ~120 spaces –Field Inventory: # of spaces could increase from ~120 to ~330 •Number of permits issued could double –Locations for lighting & safety improvements: still under review →Decision 2A: fee or no fee for employee permit? →Decision 2B: stripe spaces on side streets or just add signs for now? 3.Timeframe for All On-Street Regulations →Decision 3: limited (10:00-4:00) or broad (8:00-6:00)? 4. Kiosks in Public Lots (CVS & Brande Court)* –Types: →Decision 4A: Pay-by-Plate or Pay-by-Space? –Timeframe for Regulations / Time Limits: →Decision 4B: start later (10:00-6:00) or all day (8:00-6:00)? →In either case, consider allowing first 30 mins free →Decision 4C: time limit or no time limit? →If no time limit, consider escalating price after 4 hours –Recommended Pricing Strategy: •First 30 mins FREE •Up to 4 hours: $1 per hour, 4+ hours: $2 per hour →Decision 4D: adopt this strategy as a place to start; data collected by kiosk will inform whether pricing needs tweaking *See compiled information from Nelson Nygaard dated 3/12/20 4. Kiosks in Public Lots (CVS & Brande Court)…Cont’d* If Town implements kiosks, it’s important we also: –Establish a Parking Benefit District →See attached memo from MAPC dated 12/20/18 (written for City of Everett but applicable to any municipality) –Invest in License Plate Recognition (LPR) technology for enforcement –Use Mobile Apps consistent with nearby towns (i.e. ParkMobile, PayByPhone, etc.) *See compiled information from Nelson Nygaard dated 3/12/20 & staff document dated 3/12/20 Implementation Timeline *Select Board and Town Meeting votes likely needed; Staff confirming process with Town Counsel. Downtown Parking -Systemwide Modifications -Implementation Timeline September October November December January 1, 2021 Select Board VOTE Employee Permits -ordering & notification to businesses (8 week minimum; 12 weeks preferred) 200+ Regulatory Signs -ordering, fabrication & installation (6 week min; 8 weeks pref) Kiosks -selection, procurement, delivery & installation (12 week minimum to be safe) Kiosks -maintenance, collection, customer service (12 week minimum to be safe) Parking App -vendor selection, contract (12 week minimum to be safe) Education/Outreach (the longer the better, will extend into January and beyond as needed) Launch Systemwide Modifications LAUNCH DATE! Downtown Parking -Systemwide Modifications -Other Components Sept.-Jan.Feb.March April May June July 2021 Sept. 2021 Prepare Capital Plan for sidewalks, lighting, etc. Establish Parking Benefit District -organizational structure, legislation Town Meeting Phase II -Commuter Impacts: begin evaluation Survey Commuters & conduct Utilization Analysis Survey Downtown Stakeholders on 1st 6 months of Phase 1 PTTTF report back to Select Board PTTTF Request of Select Board: •Feedback On: Systemwide Modifications Implementation Decisions Thank You 77 FRANKLIN STREET 10TH FLOOR BOSTON, MA 02110 617-521-9404 FAX 617-521-9409 www.nelsonnygaard.com M E M O R A N D U M To: Julie Mercier, Town of Reading From: Matt Smith Date: January 29, 2020 Subject: Parking Kiosk Recommendations The below memorandum outlines several parking payment options and recommendations for use in Reading, starting in the Town’s municipal lot(s). Payment Equipment and Costs Payment kiosks would provide the best option for on-site payment within Reading’s public parking lot(s). Kiosks provide payment options (cash and card payment), require less maintenance than standard or smart meters, and create less visual clutter.Given the number of spaces and layout of the lot(s), two kiosks (in each) would provide sufficient coverage. Kiosk costs are generally comparable to purchasing standard meters (when installation costs are included), and more cost effective than smart meters. Based on pricing sheets provided through the Metropolitan Area Planning Council’s (MAPC) Collective Purchasing website, kiosks (solar powered or hard-wired) generally cost in the $10,000 to $12,000 range per unit, with some models priced higher. We would recommend units that at a minimum accept coins, bills, and card payments, provide a digital display (easier to see and to provide additional information) and that include internal lighting. Units without internal lighting are difficult to read at night. Kiosks can be procured through the MAPC’s Collective Purchasing program. MAPC has negotiated lower rates as part of a statewide group procurement process, allowing municipalities to purchase units at a discount without going to bid. For example, Parkeon’s multi-space meter (i.e. kiosk) – solar of hard-wired – accepting coins, bills, cards and with a small display screen runs $11,600 per unit under the program. All models from various vendors including ITS, IPS and offer units at similar costs. For a list of all available units, see https://www.mapc.org/our-work/services-for-cities- towns/public-works-collective-purchasing-program/#parkingpaymentsystems Recommendation: Hard-wired (electric) kiosk from Parkeon or IPS. Hard-wired kiosks have a slight edge as these units are more reliable in cold weather. However, newer solar units have improved performance, so given the reduction in costs to install (no electricity is needed) and to operate (no electricity is needed), solar is a good, green option. There is no or little difference in unit cost, but ongoing costs are less for solar. Recommendation: Allocate $15,000 per kiosk, including installation costs. Installation costs include labor and materials for a concrete pad where unit is located, electrician costs (if wired), and shelters (optional). [NAME OF DOCUMENT] | VOLUME [Client Name] Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 2 Installation Timeframe Based on a discussion with a Municipal Parking Manager, kiosks are typically shipped and installed within 6-8 weeks; however, timeframes may shift depending on availability and orders. Kiosk installation costs – of the unit itself – is typically included in the cost. Other costs – concrete pad, electric conduit connection, etc. – is the responsibility of the municipality. Payment Options Pay-by-Plate vs. Pay-by-Space Recommendation: Pay-by-Plate should be used for parking payment sessions. Kiosks allow pay by space and pay by plate options. Pay by Plate is recommended for several reasons. - Pay-by-plate is more cost effective. There is no need to number individual spaces – signs or paint, which requires frequent upkeep. - Pay-by-plate can be used to track user patterns, for example, how often a specific car parks in the lot, and for how long. - Pay-by-plate can be used for virtual (license plate based) permits and LPR (license plate recognition) enforcement should the Town procure systems in the future. Free Parking Allocation Given that paid parking is new to Downtown Reading, allowing a short period of free parking, as well as a grace period at the end of each session, is recommended. Free parking should be directed towards short-term, convenience parking sessions. For example, someone running into a café for coffee pick-up or into the pharmacy quickly. Recommendation: Provide 15-minutes of free parking for each session. Free parking still requires entering license plate into the kiosk (or parking app – see next section). Additionally, proving an automatic grace period at the end of each paid session sho uld be considered, so as not to punitively punish those who are unintentionally delayed, and go over the time allotted by a few minutes. Such programs help to reduce enforcement fear. Recommendation: Institute a 5-minute grace period that automatically extends the paid time by 5-minutes to reduce likelihood of receiving a ticket within minutes of a session ending. Pricing Strategy Among the most successful ways to encourage parking turnover is pricing. Given that the two Town owned lots serve a variety of user types, providing the option to park for different periods of time, even all-day should be allowed (if parkers are willing to pay for it. Recommendation: Implement graduated pricing, where the base hourly rate ($1.00 per hour) increases for anyone parking more than 4 hours (e.g. $2 per hour). [NAME OF DOCUMENT] | VOLUME [Client Name] Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 3 Hourly Parking Fee Breakdown - First 15-minutes: Free - Up to 4 hours: $1 per hour - 4 or more hours: $2 per hour. Parking Applications Parking applications add convenience for parkers. Many communities already incorporate parking applications, which have proven popular with many users. Parking applications not only provide user convenience, they also provide important data about parking patterns and user behavior, but also provide additional services (typically included in the base package) such as Parking Validation options allowing individual businesses and/or organizations to set up individual accounts and pay for their customers’ parking. Parking applications can also be used to manage permit systems (by plate). There are several options available to communities. Among the most used by local municipalities are ParkMobile (Somerville), Passport Labs (Boston, Cambridge, Brookline, Salem, and more) and PayByPhone. Any of these platforms should be considered. Parking App contract costs may be paid in full by the municipality, the user (parker, with a fee) or a combination. Recommendation: Contract with a parking application vendo r before launching payment. Parking Benefit District Parking Benefit Districts (PBDs) provide a mechanism in which to designate all parking revenues within a defined district – in this case, Downtown Reading – to improve the parking system within that district. Parking district improvements include but are not limited to parking equipment and maintenance, staffing (e.g. enforcement), infrastructure improvements (roadway, sidewalk, bicycle projects), public transit; wayfinding and signage, and more. All the above effect the parking system by improving facilities, managing parking demand, and more. Establishing a PBD before parking fees are established is recommended. The funds to be collected under a new system are net new revenues and do not impact existing budget allocations. Further, by advertising that all parking revenues directly go to fund infrastructure and beautification projects in the downtown district, users will see and experience the results. The Town of Arlington adopted the first PBD in Massachusetts. Funds from new parking meters are used to pay for improvements to public parking lots near Mass Ave, including lighting to improve visibility and user safety. Recommendation: Establish a Parking Benefits District as part of the introduction of priced parking. 1 Downtown Parking – Systemwide Modifications Feedback from Arlington Econ Dev / Transportation Staff & Waltham Traffic Engineering Staff Compiled by Julie Mercier, Community Development Director Date: 3/12/20 OVERVIEW Arlington:  Implemented paid parking in public lots and on-street, established Parking Benefit District in 2016  Pricing scheme: $0.50/hour & can park all day; first 15 minutes free for on-street meters (abused)  Employees & Residents can purchase permit to use municipal lots; Town not keeping track of data  Don’t use Mobile Apps but plan to launch PayByPhone soon Waltham:  Has had some form of paid parking since 1980s; Currently, on-street is free and there are 23 kiosks in public lots; modifications proposed to add paid parking on-street where prime spots are  Pricing scheme: $2 for 12 hours; used by many commuters (Staff think this is way too cheap)  All parking revenue goes into Parking Meter Fund, separate from General Fund  Offer Monthly ($35), Yearly ($350), Senior ($5) and Resident Permits  we may want to consider Senior Citizen Permit for nominal fee  Use PayByPhone App – it’s very popular KIOSKS 1. Vendor Review a. IPS (Arlington leases on-street & multi-space meters) i. Mechanical / Maintenance / $ Collection: solar panels don’t charge well, screens bake in sun & unreadable; many issues with coin jams, many contested tickets – vendor response terrible ii. Customer Service: terrible, Arlington outsourced to 3rd party (RepublicParking) iii. Data Collection: very disappointing; financial back-end is robust but not user friendly and doesn’t connect space # w/payment info or time – as a result, staff have not tracked utilization and do not know if changes are needed  Not Recommended b. Parkeon (Waltham owned kiosks in past) i. Mechanical / Maintenance / $ Collection: needed fixing constantly, $ collection was awkward ii. Customer Service: closest person in NY, would charge $1000 per visit iii. Data Collection: good back-office reporting  Not Recommended unless issues described have been resolved c. VenTech (Waltham owns kiosks now) i. Mechanical / Maintenance / $ Collection: solar panels don’t have many issues; bills/receipts jam during rain – system sends email to staff; Waltham has part- time repair/collection person on staff ii. Customer Service: local MA person available, very responsive iii. Data Collection: good data provided but they don’t really use it  Recommended – Waltham loves them 2 2. Type of Kiosk a. Pay & Display (Arlington): many complaints about back & forth, need to allow Mobile App in order to mitigate this b. Pay By Space (Waltham): striping and signage are costly, people don’t remember #s 3. Payment Methods a. Arlington meters: coins & CC, launching mobile app soon b. Waltham meters: nickels, dimes, quarters, bills, CC & mobile app BUT no change given 4. Mobile Apps – PayByPhone (Arlington interviewed many vendors and selected PayByPhone, Waltham and MBTA use PayByPhone) a. Contract i. Contract Fee can be paid for by municipality or passed through to end user ii. Waltham passes $0.25 through to end user; required to have 1,000 transactions per month – given 3 months to build up to that number, now exceed it easily b. Promotional Materials provided by PBP can be attached to kiosk so users know how to download and use App c. Interface w/Kiosk Vendor - 3rd vendor needed to communicate between VenTech & PBP i. Waltham uses Conduent, contract paid for by ticket revenue ii. Not the same as LPR, but probably could coordinate with it  This part was confusing to me; will need to research further PARKING BENEFIT DISTRICT Arlington has one, Waltham does not Issues: not set up properly locally (set up when Treasurer was elected official and not an accounting professional), so accounting is unclear – as a result, it’s taken a long time for Town to spend $ Revenue: 100% net revenue goes into PBD; revenue exceeds expectations by tens of thousands Feedback from Businesses: ready to see benefits of Parking Benefit District Recommendations: make sure Town Treasurer or Accountant is member of Committee; set up allocation plan from the get-go KEY TAKE-AWAYS Arlington  Kiosks and PBD are win-win  more parking available & more $$ to invest in downtown  Set up Mobile Apps right away; PayByPhone recommended b/c used by MBTA  Do not underestimate importance of maintenance, collection & customer service for kiosks  “Parking is a scarce resource and should pay for itself” Waltham  Parking Benefit District ability to reinvest downtown makes the case for paid parking  Premium parking should cost more  Pay By Plate is best method; wish they had it  “Paying for parking is paying for peace of mind” Memorandum To: Mayor’s Office, Planning & Development Department, and Legal Counsel at the City of Everett From: Kasia Hart, MAPC Transportation Department On: December 20, 2018 Re: Parking Benefit Districts Follow Up Items Parking Benefit District Background Under the Massachusetts Municipal Modernization Act (An Act to Modernize Municipal Finance and Government,” Chapter 218 of the Acts of 2016), cities and towns are now able to create parking benefit districts. A parking benefit district is a specific geographic area from which parking revenue is collected, and then reinvested back into the district for transportation-related improvements. These improvements may include:  Acquiring, installing, maintaining or operating parking meters or other parking enforcement technology  Parking enforcement  Improvements to the public realm like street trees, curb cuts and parklets  Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure or facilities  Improvements to bus shelters, access to public transportation, or transit operations, including bus rapid transit infrastructure, facilities, and technical improvements (such as improvements to signal timing)  Salaries of parking management personnel In order to establish a parking benefit district successfully, three key components to consider early on include defining a geography for the district, determining what parking revenue should be allocated to the district and how that revenue should be budgeted (if revenue estimates are available), and designating an entity to oversee the district. Once a plan for how these elements will be established are in place, a special revenue fund can be created in order to hold the parking revenue for the parking benefit district. Below are some more details about each of these steps of the process. Key Steps for Establishing a Parking Benefit District Define a geography: One of the first steps for establishing a parking benefit district is to define the boundaries of the district itself. If the intent of the district is to invest parking revenue throughout the city or town (as opposed to a specific district), then the boundary of the district should be the same as the municipal boundary. If the district is the same as the municipality’s boundaries, the city or town does not need to allocate all municipal parking revenue to the parking benefit district; the statue allows all or a portion of the parking revenue generated within a parking benefit district to be reinvested back into that district. The remainder can continue to go to the general fund. M.G.L. only indicates that cities and towns may establish parking benefit districts, but not indicate the process by which they need to do so, so the official designation of the geography should be at the determination of the municipality. Determine parking revenue source and develop a preliminary budget : Determining what parking revenue will be allocated to the parking benefit district is another key first step, particularly if the geography of the district is the same as the municipal boundary and the amount of parking revenue that could potentially be included in the parking benefit district is substantial. Utilizing new parking revenue (i.e. revenue that was not previously allocated to the general fund) can help ensure funding for other municipal programs are not impacted by the creation of a parking benefit district. Once the source of the parking revenue is determined, it is valuable, but not essential, to estimate the amount of revenue to be allocated to the parking benefit district and then to develop a budget for how the funds will be spent within the district. Given that there is some variability in revenue, it is worthwhile to consider what investments are priorities, in case revenue is lower than anticipated. Creating a budget could be one of the first tasks for the entity designated to oversee the parking benefit district (see below). Designate an entity to oversee the PBD: According to the parking benefit district enabling statute, “a parking benefit district may be managed by a body designated by the municipality, including, but not limited to, a business improvement district or main streets organization.” Though not required, it is highly recommended there be an entity in place that is tasked with monitoring parking benefit district revenue, developing an annual budget, and performing other oversight tasks. This can be an existing body (such as an existing board or commission), or a new entity created by the municipality. Given the financial implications of a parking benefit district, having representation on this oversight body from the local finance department, finance committee, or other related group is recommended. For an example of a newly created parking benefit district oversight body composed of a range of stakeholders, please see the Town of Arlington’s Parking Implementation and Governance Committee. Establish a special revenue fund: Once the basic framework of a parking benefit district is developed, a special revenue fund should be established in order to hold the parking benefit district revenue. As this process generally has to come before City Council, it is recommended to have a proposal for a parking benefit district prepared in conjunction with the request to establish the special revenue fund. This proposal could include an outline of the three elements described above, although the actual budget could be established after the special revenue fund is created, but it is helpful to at least have a ballpark estimate of the total annual revenue that will be allocated to the fund. For further questions, please contact Kasia Hart in the MAPC Transportation Department at khart@mapc.org or 617-933-0745. Relevant Parking Benefit District Language in Massachusetts General Laws M.G.L c. 40, sec. 22A: Parking meters; fees; exemption from fees for disabled veterans and handicapped persons; bicycle locking devices; motorcycle parking; restricted parking areas for veterans and handicapped persons (as amended by An Act to Modernize Municipal Finance and Government, 2016) Section 22A. Any city or town, for the purpose of enforcing its ordinances, by-laws and orders, rules and regulations relating to the parking of vehicles on ways within its control and subject to the provisions of section two of chapter eighty-five, may appropriate money for the acquisition, installation, maintenance and operation of parking meters, or by vote of the city council or of the town may authorize a board or officer to enter into agreement for such acquisition, installation or maintenance of parking meters; provided, that the city of Boston, for the purpose of enforcing the rules and regulations adopted by its traffic and parking commission, or promulgated by its commissioner of traffic and parking, under chapter two hundred and sixty-three of the acts of nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, may appropriate money for the acquisition, installation, maintenance and operation of parking meters, or, by vote of the city council of said city, subject to the provisions of its charter, may authorize the traffic and parking commission of said city to enter into agreements for the acquisition, installation or maintenance of parking meters. In any city or town that accepts this sentence, the agreement for the acquisition or installation of parking meters may provide that payments thereunder shall be made over a period not exceeding 5 years without appropriation, from fees received for the use of such parking meters notwithstanding section 53 of chapter 44. Such fees shall be established and charged at rates determined by the city or town. Rates may be set for the purpose of managing the parking supply. The revenue therefrom may be used for acquisition, installation, maintenance and operation of parking meters and other parking payment and enforcement technology, the regulation of parking, salaries of parking management personnel, improvements to the public realm, and transportation improvements, including, but not limited to, the operations of mass transit and facilities for biking and walking. No fee shall be exacted and no penalty shall be imposed for the parking of any vehicle owned and driven by a disabled veteran or by a handicapped person and bearing the distinctive number plates authorized by section two of chapter ninety, or for any vehicle transporting a handicapped person and displaying the special parking identification plate authorized by said section two of said chapter ninety or for any vehicle bearing the official identification of a handicapped person issued by any other state or any Canadian Province. Any city or town may, in accordance with the provisions of this section, acquire and operate coin-operated locking devices for bicycle parking. A city or town may, in accordance with the provisions of this section, authorize the parking of more than one motorcycle in a single parking space and may impose a penalty for the full amount of a violation of an ordinance, by-law, order, rule or regulation related to the parking of vehicles on ways within its control and subject to section 2 of chapter 85 for each motorcycle so parked in violation of any such ordinance, by-law, order, rule or regulation. No motorcycle shall be parked in such a manner so as to inhibit the means of egress of another motorcycle currently parked in the same parking space. M.G.L. c. 40, sec. 22A ½: Parking benefit districts Section 22A 1/2. A city or town may establish 1 or more parking benefit districts, as a geographically defined area, in which parking revenue collected therein may be designated in whole or in part for use in that district through a dedicated fund in accordance with the purposes and uses listed in section 22A. A parking benefit district may be managed by a body designated by the municipality, including, but not limited to, a business improvement district or main streets organization. 1 Downtown Parking – Systemwide Modifications Information Provided by Matt Smith of Nelson Nygaard Compiled by Julie Mercier, Community Development Director Date: 3/12/20 A) See Memo from Nelson Nygaard, dated 1/29/20 re: Parking Kiosk Recommendations, distributed to Select Board for 2/4/20 Meeting and again for 3/17/20 Meeting. B) Follow up questions from 2/4/20, email exchange between Julie (black text) & Matt (red text): 1. Pay-By-Plate a. Concerns were expressed about privacy and security i. What kind of data is collected / can be accessed through someone’s license plate? The plate number is used as an ID for enforcement purposes, but no other information is provided. For example, when the enforcement officer prints out the paid parking list (from the kiosk), all plate numbers of cars that have paid, are listed on a printout. The officer then compares the car plates with those on the list. If the plate number isn’t listed on the printout, the car hasn’t paid, and it’s a violation. A ticket is then issued as any other ticket would be issued. ii. Pay-By-Space wouldn’t collect this type of data on users, but it could still track utilization patterns, etc., right? Yes, it would collect utilization information, but what pay by space can’t do, nor can pay and display, is track duration information. For example, if someone pays by plate for 2 hours, but then extends it another 2 hours, you now know a car parked for a total of 4-hours. Pay by space (or pay and display) would not provide this detail – it would look like 2 separate cars parked in the space. This is why pay by plate is more valuable – helps you to understand parking behaviors more effectively. iii. What would we be giving up from a data/enforcement perspective if we used Pay-By-Space instead of Pay-By-Plate? Enforcement is no different. With pay by plate and pay by space, enforcement officers receive a printout of paid parking – either the space number or the license plate number. b. Concerns were also expressed about the need to walk back and forth from car to kiosk i. Is it safe to say that with Pay-By-Plate (which I’ve never used), a user doesn’t have to walk back to the car to put a sticker on the dash or am I misunderstanding how this would work? The major advantage of pay by plate is there is no need to walk back to your car. You plug it in, pay and then go. Pay by space is problematic when people don’t see the number, go to pay, and then have to walk back to get the number and then back to the kiosk. And pay and display is the worst, as it requires all parkers to pay then walk back to display the proof or payment. It’s the major disadvantage – especially in lots where the distance to the kiosk is often greater. It’s highly inconvenient for the parker. 2. Free Period a. Select Board members feel that 15 minutes is too short of a free period, 2 hours was suggested The purpose of paid parking is to better manage high demand parking areas 2 where spaces are at a premium, typically because they are nearest amenities. Allowing 2-hours free wouldn’t be effective in achieving turnover. If 2-hours are free, I think the cost of installing kiosks or meters isn’t worthwhile either. Upping the free time to 30- minutes is perfectly acceptable. It still encourages turnover, but allows for unanticipated delays for convenience trips – e.g. long line at the pharmacy may go over 15 minutes free, but unlikely to go over 30-mins free. i. What is the maximum free period you think is advisable? 30-minutes (especially since on-street spaces will remain free) 3. Pricing a. Concern about up-front and ongoing costs of kiosks the upfront cost appears high, but they more or less pay for themselves, and then some. (e.g. 50 spaces at $1/hr over 10 hours = $50/hr revenue, or $500/day). If only 50% utilized, the revenue is $250/day. With approx. 300 revenue producing days a year (Sundays free, and holidays free), that is $75,000 a year in revenue for the lot (at 50% utilization). Upfront cost is less than a third of the first year revenue. Ongoing costs include wireless connection (if want real time data, or want to include in parking app) – max $1,200 a year, plus small maintenance budget ($500). The Town continues to come way out on top. i. In your experience, has paid parking resulted in more or less revenue than towns expect? Typically more, especially with kiosks. Meters (old coin ones and smart ones) display on the meter how much parking time remains. When someone leaves early, the next user sees there is time, and doesn’t have to pay for that portion. When using kiosks – pay by plate especially, each person pays for their parking from the time they arrive, even if it overlaps with a previous paid session. ii. What do we need to charge to recoup the costs of kiosks? I understand this can probably be answered in many ways. See the above. Based on that, even if you only charge $.50/hr, and utilization remained at 50% on average, you would collect $37,500 in the first year – approx. $15K more than the kiosks. Even if utilization plummeted to 25%, and you charged $.50/hr, you still collect $18,750 a year, so it would take 2 years to recoup the cost of 2 kiosks. If helpful, I could create a spreadsheet highlighting the kiosk costs (installation and maintenance), and the revenues (at different utilization and hourly cost levels), to estimate time to recoup costs. C) Follow-up questions relayed from Julie to Matt: 1. LPR costs & timeframes for ordering/implementing – could the same company provide/service the LPR tech and the kiosks? 2. One thing I want to clarify: even though the kiosk just collects license plate info and nothing else, it would still be possible for the Police Department to take this license plate info and plug it into their other systems to get personal information, correct? But it sounds like this would not be automatic – it would be an extra step PD would have to take if they wanted to know more about a user/person. 3. I’ll take you up on your last offer to create a spreadsheet on costs/revenues – I think this would be really informative. Can you show us the difference between 6 days of paid parking (including Saturdays) and 5 days (only Mon-Fri)? It’s still an open question whether we would include Saturdays or not. I’ll have to look at the utilization data. Do you have a recommendation on this? All of our other enforcement timeframes are just Mon-Fri. Perhaps having it broken down as 3 8:00-4:00 (8 hours of paid parking per day) and 8:00-6:00 (10 hours of paid parking per day) would be informative as well. D) See Memo from Nelson Nygaard, dated 3/11/20 re: LPR, Kiosk Data & Revenues, distributed to Select Board for 3/17/20 Meeting. E) See Parking Revenue Comparison prepared by Nelson Nygaard, dated 3/11/20, distributed to Select Board for 3/17/20 Meeting. F) Follow-up questions relayed from Julie (black text) with response from Matt (red text): 1. It sounds like in the pay-by-plate scenario, license plate information would be collected and retained for purpose of analyzing parking patterns. Is there a way to anonymize it? A license plate number can still be traced back to the user (even if not by the vendor). Or is there a way to analyze the parking patterns lot without tying the patterns to the actual plate numbers? 2. Under the proposed pay-by-plate system, as currently envisioned, who would "own" and have access to the data? The Town? The vendor? Both? It’s a little unclear about how the data is provided, but typically, the full plate is provided as part of the system. The key issue here is to ensure data use policies are clear and limit the ability of law enforcement to use the data. I think a good way to discuss is how the State uses license plate technology for all electronic tolling on the Pike and Tobin bridge. An LPR scanner snaps photos of every plate, processes through database, and then issues tickets to those vehicles who do not have an EZ pass. However, they have set strict data usage policies. For example, laws require subpoenas for authorities to access driver data, mirroring existing policies of EZ Pass system. So basically, anyone who has been using EZ Pass for years, or ever drives the Pike or Tobin, this is the same thing. It’s enforcing something electronically. Data retention policies – 30 days, 3 months, 1 year, etc. – should also be put in place to limit ability to track behavior. Simply put, LPR is already a part of most people’s daily lives. There are even parking garages that only use LPR for payment. Nearly every parking kiosk uses pay by plate – it’s just manual. This is no different. And, most parking enforcement handhelds scan the barcode on people’s inspection sticker, which links it to the registration, to provide tickets. It’s all electronic. As long as policies are put in place to protect data, it should be good. READING PARKING ANALYSIS Additional Information on Enforcement and Revenue Potential LPR Costs and Timeframe: LPR costs will differ depending on the type of equipment purchased. There are handheld LPR systems where parking enforcement officers carry them and scan each plate; fixed location LPR readers mounted on posts at entry/exit locations (gather data entering and exiting a lot for example); and vehicle mounted LPR systems that scan plates as enforcement vehicle drives by the parked cars. Getting an exact cost requires submitting a proposal to a vendor, with final costs depending on the type of equipment and scale of operations. It’s a hardware and software package typically. Essentially, the better the equipment, the more expensive. I’ve heard of systems that cost as little as $5,000 to over $25,000. Vehicle mounted systems are the most common and run in the $10,000-$15,000 per vehicle range. They are expensive but are highly effective. My take is that costs will come down in cost over the next several years as more places start to use them. Kiosk Collection Technically it would be possible for the police to access plate info, but it would require them to go into other systems to look at who the plate belongs to, etc. It’s an interesting question because a data advantage of a pay by plate system is the ability to track paid usage by plate (not person – again, that requires an extra step into another database). It allows the operator (not the police) to see how often a car parks there, and for how long they pay on average. It helps to understand turnover and frequency of use. I have never heard of a police force taking the data. However, you could also consider placing parking enforcement officers in another department to separate the duties – this is what Salem does. While police can and do ticket when called, they still use paper tickets. All digital enforcement is done by the Parking Enforcement Officers who are part of the Traffic and Parking Department, and the Parking Clerk is in another department. The Police don’t have any access to the kiosk information in Salem. It’s a good system. Revenues See spreadsheet, which breaks down both lots by 5 or 6 days (Monday – Friday, or Monday- Saturday); by two enforcement hours (8am-4pm or 8am-6pm); and by different rates ($0.50/hr and $1.00/hour). The assumed average utilization/occupancy throughout the day is at 75%. To be more conservative, we could redo this at 50%. [NAME OF DOCUMENT] | VOLUME [Client Name] Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2 Town of Reading Parking Revenue Breakdown Main Lot - Behind CVS Max Revenue Per Space Low High Low High @ $.50 / hr @ $1.00/hour 8am - 4pm 8 5 40 2,000 73 146,000 $0.50 $1.00 73,000$ 146,000$ 54,750$ 109,500$ 8am - 6pm 10 5 50 2,500 73 182,500 $0.50 $1.00 91,250$ 182,500$ 68,438$ 136,875$ 8am - 4pm 8 6 48 2,400 73 175,200 $0.50 $1.00 87,600$ 175,200$ 65,700$ 131,400$ 8am - 6pm 10 6 60 3,000 73 219,000 $0.50 $1.00 109,500$ 219,000$ 82,125$ 164,250$ * Total Hours per year reflects 52 weeks of parking minus 10 days (holidays when parking is typically free - NY Day, MLK, Presidents Day, Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas) Lower Lot - Brande Court Max Revenue Per Space Low High Low High @ $.50 / hr @ $1.00/hour 8am - 4pm 8 5 40 2,000 86 172,000 $0.50 $1.00 86,000$ 172,000$ 64,500$ 129,000$ 8am - 6pm 10 5 50 2,500 86 215,000 $0.50 $1.00 107,500$ 215,000$ 80,625$ 161,250$ 8am - 4pm 8 6 48 2,400 86 206,400 $0.50 $1.00 103,200$ 206,400$ 77,400$ 154,800$ 8am - 6pm 10 6 60 3,000 86 258,000 $0.50 $1.00 129,000$ 258,000$ 96,750$ 193,500$ * Total Hours per year reflects 52 weeks of parking minus 10 days (holidays when parking is typically free - NY Day, MLK, Presidents Day, Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas) ANNUAL TOTAL - BOTH LOTS Max Revenue Per Space Low High Low High @ $.50 / hr @ $1.00/hour 8am - 4pm 8 5 40 2,000 159 318,000 $0.50 $1.00 159,000$ 318,000$ 119,250$ 238,500$ 8am - 6pm 10 5 50 2,500 159 397,500 $0.50 $1.00 198,750$ 397,500$ 149,063$ 298,125$ 8am - 4pm 8 6 48 2,400 159 381,600 $0.50 $1.00 190,800$ 381,600$ 143,100$ 286,200$ 8am - 6pm 10 6 60 3,000 159 477,000 $0.50 $1.00 238,500$ 477,000$ 178,875$ 357,750$ Monday - Saturday Total Spaces Total Space Hours Rate Per Hour 75% Average Occupancy Monday - Friday Hours of Enforcement Daily Hours Number of Days Per Week Total Hours Per Week Total Hours Per Year (minus 10 Rate Per Hour 75% Average Occupancy Monday - Friday Monday - Saturday 75% Average Occupancy Monday - Friday Monday - Saturday Hours of Enforcement Daily Hours Number of Days Per Week Total Hours Per Week Total Hours Per Year (minus 10 holidays)Total Spaces Total Space Hours Rate Per Hour Hours of Enforcement Daily Hours Total Space HoursTotal Spaces Total Hours Per Year (minus 10 holidays) Total Hours Per Week Number of Days Per Week