Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-07-19 Public Services Com. MinutesDUBLIN CITY COUNCIL Public Services Committee Wednesday, August 7, 2019 Council Chambers — 6:00 p.m. Minutes of Meeting Chairperson Alutto called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. Committee Members present: Ms. Alutto, Ms. Fox, Mr. Reiner (arrived late) Staff members present: Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Crandall, Ms. Goss, Ms. O'Callaghan, Chief P6ez, Mr. Earman, Ms. Rauch, Ms. Puranik, Ms. Willis, Mr. Anderson and Mr. Nicol. Mr. Boggs arrived later. Others present: Matt Starr, Crawford Hoying; Dave Holler, VP Sales, ParkMobile. Approval of Meeting Minutes o June 5, 2019 o June 12, 2019 Ms. Fox moved approval of the meeting minutes of June 5, 2019. Ms. Alutto seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Alutto, yes; Ms. Fox, yes. Ms. Alutto moved approval of the meeting minutes of June 12, 2019. Ms. Fox seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Alutto, yes; Ms. Fox, yes. Parking Management Pilot Program - Follow-up Ms. Goss noted that the goal for tonight is to address questions from the previous discussion of this topic and seek the Committee's recommendation to Council. As a reminder, in 2016, Council directed staff to initiate a parking management study as a result of development occurring in the downtown area and the need to better manage the City's parking inventory. The study was led by the Division of Planning with support from Public Works. Throughout this study, staff has regularly provided progress updates to Council. In a work session on September 17, 2018, staff presented the findings of the Downtown Dublin parking study and action plan, and the concept of the mobile -only parking management system pilot program. After review and discussion, Council authorized staff to proceed with issuance of an RFP to seek a technology partner for a mobile -only parking management system pilot program in the downtown area. By issuing the RFP and obtaining proposals, staff would have the details necessary to present a complete pilot program to Council. Council then directed the Public Services Committee to oversee the RFP process, with a final recommendation to be presented to Council for approval to proceed. The outline for the presentation tonight is as follows: An overview of the connected Dublin strategy and how this mobile -only parking concept fits into the overall strategy; Public Services Committee August 7, 2019 Page 2 • Staff will briefly highlight why it is important to proactively manage parking in downtown Dublin; • Staff will provide an overview of the RFP process and the responses received; share staff recommendations; demonstrate the technology recommended; • Discuss next steps and address any questions. Overview of the connected Dublin strategy and how this mobile -only parking concept fits into the overall st"e To recap the Council engagement, that occurred in 2016 and was outlined in work sessions. The project objectives, possible solutions and the Nelson Nygaard action plan were all discussed at those previous sessions, as well as at the September 2018 work session. At that time, Council gave direction to issue the RFP for the mobile -only parking management system. The memo in the packet provides background and detail on the program and process. Should the Public Services Committee make a recommendation to Council to move forward, and should Council authorize staff to move forward, the next step would be to begin the implementation of the pilot project, including stakeholder engagement and public education. Those communication materials were included in the packet. Once the pilot project has begun, staff will be able to collect the data on occupancy and parking patterns and prepare a heat map. Why it is important to proactively manage parking in downtown Dublin In 2016, with the direction of Council to pursue a parking management study in the downtown area, the request was to better understand how to leverage parking as a valuable asset — both for City residents and businesses. Effective parking management can also generate revenue, which can be invested back in the District for sustainability and long-term maintenance; however, that is not a financial objective of the program. The program is designed to manage the parking and its availability. The cost of surface parking is $5,000-10,000 per space to construct, including the value of the land it occupies. Structured parking costs between $25,000-50,000 per space. The financial consequences are therefore not to be overlooked. Premium parking spaces in front of businesses are highly desirable. The parking management study will help the City understand how to use those spaces so that they can be open for the businesses in the area. Quick turnover is of concern, as cars sit in parking spaces for 95 percent of the time. Quick turnover of the premium parking spaces in front of businesses will aid in attracting more customers. Because there is no charge for on -street parking, the current culture is to park there during the day all day long. There is need to change that behavior by implementing policies that will discourage that practice. Public Services Committee August 7, 2019 Page 3 Process and Responses Ms. Willis stated that at the September 2018 work session, Council authorized staff to issue RFPs for the project. The principles and objectives of the RFP were as follows: • Key ingredient overall success of the City • Meet the needs of a diverse group of stakeholders and must be customer focused • Well managed as a sustainable asset • Integrated into the overall transportation and mobility systems • Leading edge technology that is scalable and expandable in the future • Supply and demand must be evaluated and detailed in reporting • Improve overall parking administration and operations. As the RFP was structured, there were three parts: Part 1 — focus on Historic Dublin data collection — N. High Street, S. High Street, surface parking lots including Darby Street and Town Center 1 and 2. Part 2 — implement a complete mobile parking payment system that will also include a smart parking guidance, communication, and monitoring system for on -street parking spaces only in the Bridge Park Area. This would include the on -street spaces in the Bridge Park area on Longshore between Tuller Ridge and Bridge Park Avenue, Bridge Park Avenue and 13 spaces along Riverside Drive. Part 3 — private parking lots in Historic Dublin and seeking private lot owners to volunteer those private lots to be monetized in after hour situations using the same mobile parking payment system as in part 2. Four companies submitted in response to the RFP. Verizon expressed interest, but could not meet all the requirements and therefore did not respond. ParkMobile and Passport were then short listed and interviewed. They were selected based on their clear understanding of the project's responsiveness to the RFP; answering the questions posed in the RFP; and the approach to the three parts presented. Ultimately, ParkMobile is recommended as the technology partner because they aligned with Dublin's vision of Smart Mobility and Parking. They have a regional presence, as OSU and the City of Columbus are currently partners with ParkMobile. They have local representation, and a ParkMobile employee is a resident of Dublin. They have 15 million plus users nationwide, 70 million plus transactions and have 400 plus cities and municipalities participating in their program. Their ease of integration with other technology solutions providers was also a factor in this recommendation. Ms. Puranik stated she will highlight some of the points discussed at the last meeting. 0Parking in Downtown Dublin In terms of the geography of the pilot program in downtown Dublin, the Nelson Nygaard study found there is 85 percent occupancy constantly for the recommended streets. In Bridge Park, these include Riverside Drive, certain spaces along Longshore Street and Bridge Park Avenue. In Historic Dublin, for now it is N. High Street and volunteer private lots. Public Services Committee August 7, 2019 Page 4 9 Mobility and Curbside Management The mobility study is focused on ways the City can leverage the emerging paradigm shift in urban mobility in which a sudden expansion of shared -vehicle travel options is transforming long-established connections between vehicle ownership and independent mobility — to fully realize its potential to remain a top -tier residential, business and tourist destination in the Columbus region. Parking generally and parking management in Dublin's walkable urban centers in particular are central to these efforts — and a key focus among stakeholders engaged through the Mobility Study outreach efforts. The Mobility Study pilots projects such as the Senior and Workforce Circulators. The Complete Streets resolution policy adoption and Bikeshare, etc. are implemented in conjunction with the parking management pilot. Ms. Alutto asked how the integration of Workforce and Senior circulators and Bikeshare will occur. Ms. Puranik stated that the City is testing these Smart City technologies at the same time, providing many options for citizens to use, thereby discouraging car use. *Program Costs There are no upfront costs to the City of Dublin during the pilot program duration, except for sign installation. ParkMobile will provide signs for the first round, with City installation. They provide marketing and branding support; data reporting and dashboard display; 24/7 customer service; and implementation partner through the pilot during of nine months. ParkMobile will charge $.030 to the end user per transaction. Current enforcement practices to continue with technology support from T2 Systems who they partner with. Nelson Nygaardfs recommendation for paid parking program was $1 per hour between 10 am to 5 p.m. and $2 per hour from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. with no time limit. This will provide an opportunity for visitors to enjoy a longer dinner. After 9 p.m., the parking would be free until 10 a.m. the following day. Ms. Fox asked Mr. Starr of Crawford Hoying about problems they experience with overnight parking at Bridge Park. Matt Starr, Crawford Hoying, 6640 Riverside Drive noted he has not reviewed the final recommendations in this, but agreed there have been a handful of overnight parkers in Bridge Park. They will need to evaluate. Perhaps having the paid parking extending a bit later would help or having it begin earlier than 10 a.m. Ms. Fox noted that was a primary reason she recalls that Crawford Hoying brought this forward. Mr. Starr stated they need to work through this issue. Ms. Puranik continued. # Bridge Park parking pilot Crawford Hoying continually works with tenants and visitors and has been closely monitoring availability, demand and supply of parking. Data received from ParkMobile will help the City adjust the timing and pricing as the program moves forward. A Public Services Committee August 7, 2019 Page 5 committee recommended free handicapped spaces and that will be included in the pilot. A total of 73 on -street spaces are currently part of the pilot phase for the project. * Community Education This was reviewed at the last PSC meeting. CPI has a communications plan using the website and all social media platforms, handouts, door-to-door outreach, paid social media ads and newspaper ads. ParkMobile provides marketing support and designs customized videos, etc. that can be leveraged. They also provide an interactive map. Staff is looking into developing a map of parking available or what kind of paid parking system will be available within the District. * ParkMobile Customer Service They have 24/7/365 days a year customer service with bilingual support. They have a call center and use social media to maintain real time interaction with their 15 million plus members. Ms. Fox asked about real time support. At the last meeting, there was discussion that if a problem with the system occurs, a user could call but it would not actually be real time. She wants to understand what "real time" support means. Ms. Puranik responded that this is support within the application. Someone could chat within the app to get help immediately or contact the call center for that help, as well. (At this point, Mr. Reiner arrived.) "Data Privacy and Ownership The Legal staff have reviewed the agreement. The agreement highlights are: 1. ParkMobile will provide access to a reporting and analytics dashboard throughout the pilot duration. 2. Data collected will provide the City with objective insights for future policy and code changes for better parking management. 3. ParkMobile does not share or sell Personally Identifiable Information (PII) collected through its devices or app with third parties. 4. All intellectual property, such as the mobile app platform and member data is owned by ParkMobile. 5. Each party retains control of its intellectual property, including logos. 6. City's receipt and rights to statistical data are to aid in the City's evaluation and implementation of parking management policies. Ms. Alutto stated one of the concerns is if the statistical data provided to the City is considered a public record. Ms. Puranik responded that Mr. Boggs can provide more details when he arrives, but it is a public record. Ms. Alutto noted that she understands they do not sell PII to outside entities. Her question relates to what is sent to the City. Dave Holler, VP Sales, ParkMobile stated there is no PII created — when one registers as a ParkMobile user, it is e-mail address, the zip code one is parking in, credit card or Public Services Committee August 7, 2019 Page 6 payment data, and license plate (not name, address PII) -- overall, the City data transactionally — how many transactions were done, what license plate is tied to that transaction if a ticket is issued in error. No PII is involved. Ms. Alutto stated that if the City is obtaining information that includes a license plate number, tied to an individual, and that individual has a history of tickets — would that information be public record, and what could be done with that information? Mr. Holler responded the plate itself is public information. In terms of enforcement or notices to names/addresses, it is owned by the City. Ms. Alutto stated that if someone receives a traffic ticket today, it is a public record. Ms. Puranik agreed. Ms. Fox asked about specifics on the data collected. For example, the license plate. Will that indicate what space the license plate is parked in? Mr. Holler responded it would not. Only when tied to a pay by space environment is the license tied to a space. With a pay by plate system, the enforcement officer sees that the fee has been paid and the owner of the vehicle with that plate will not be ticketed. Ms. Fox stated that the tracking is only for paying or not paying the fee, correct? That vehicle license plate information is only collected if the fee is unpaid? Mr. Holler responded that in the ParkMobile system, only payments by plate are tracked. Ms. Alutto noted it would not be by individual space. Ms. Fox stated that if one parks in front of Cap City and utilizes the app, what data goes to ParkMobile? Mr. Holler responded that the data provided is the plate parking has paid the fee. As enforcement is done, they may look at where tickets are issued, based on location. That is on the enforcement side. He added that the parking is done by zone, not by space. Typically, a block is a zone. The enforcement officer would look at all payments made in that zone and plates that have paid in that zone. Ms. Fox stated that Dublin is in the beginning stages of data collection. She wants to understand what data is collected and how it will be used. If someone wanted to track a license plate and whether a car was parked on a particular street on a particular day, would the City have to provide that information? Mr. Holler responded ParkMobile does not release any information on its users. From their perspective, they are taking the payment. If someone calls City Hall about a license plate that was parked, that would be another matter altogether. Ms. Puranik added that, currently, when a ticket is issued, the City has that data, but it is not shared. Ms. Fox noted this is a legal issue related to data privacy. Ms. O'Callaghan noted that staff had planned for Mr. Boggs to attend tonight, but he will arrive a bit later. Perhaps this question can be held until he arrives. Mr. Reiner asked about the security on credit cards used in the ParkMobile system. Mr. Holler responded that they have the highest level of data security and are PCl/DSS Level I compliant. The website Visa has a global registry of service providers where they are listed. This is a listing done by a third party every year. They work with over 400 cities, and data security and privacy is the heart and soul of their business. Public Services Committee August 7, 2019 Page 7 Next Steps Ms. Goss stated that with the Committee's recommendation approved by Council, staff would finalize the vendor contract and award and execute the contract for the pilot implementation in the three parts recommended; collaborate with the stakeholders, prior to implementation, to make sure they understand the full scope of the project and the implementation of that; proceed with the public information piece as included in the packet and that communication strategy; work with ParkMobile on their branding and street signs and the strategy about sign location. All of this would be executed within a period of about 60 days. The pilot is intended to be a nine-month project. Staff would assemble the data collection and analyze it, and then evaluate any policy and code changes that may need to be recommended for adoption. Staff is seeking the Committee's recommendation to take forward to Council. Committee Discussion Ms. Fox noted that because this is driven by the need for data, she wants to understand what data they are searching for and what we are hoping to achieve by obtaining this data. Ms. Goss responded that the data collection is around usage — to understand the occupancy of spaces and how often they are used. In talking of license plates and other type of recognition, who is parking in the spot is not important to the City, but rather how often and for what period of time — what is the percent of parking utilization in the area. That is Nelson Nygaard's recommendation for an area -- once it reaches that 85 percent capacity, triggering the need to begin charging for on -street parking. The goal is to change behaviors so that people are not parking in spaces for extended hours. It is really about the utilization of the spaces — that is the data being sought. Ms. Alutto asked if this is during a given period of time — perhaps 10 to 1— if 85 percent or more of those spaces were occupied during that entire period of time, and not a rolling period of time, like 10:30 to 1:30. Ms. Puranik stated it is an average. Ms. Alutto asked if the 85 percent is the industry standard. Ms. Puranik responded affirmatively. Mr. Reiner added this could be helpful. For example, in the parking lot behind La Chatelaine, employees from a nearby building were tying up the entire parking lot before the City worked with them to find a solution. Ms. Fox stated there are two separate issues — Historic Dublin and Bridge Park East. Both have different needs for different reasons. At the end of nine months, what is hoped to be accomplished? What would be the measure of success? When the data is collected, how will we know if success has been achieved in terms of effects on businesses, whether it improves retail, etc. in implementing something this different? Ms. Puranik responded that quick turnover of spaces is one of the goals of this pilot, too. The concept is that a person should not park in these spaces for long periods of time. If that goal is achieved, it would be a measure of success of the program. Also, pushing people to park in the garages on both the east and west sides would be another measure of success. With ParkMobile's help and support, if merchants provide Public Services Committee August 7, 2019 Page 8 promotional opportunities for their events and it improves merchants' business, that will be a measure of success. Ms. Fox asked how staff will know this — will they return to each business and obtain feedback about the parking? Ms. Puranik responded that, most likely, a sampling of businesses who have participated in the program would be done. Ms. Fox noted that she is aware that Bridge Park East has many more businesses, but the Historic District has just a few and it would be easy to obtain their feedback. Ms. Fox asked if the parking study by Nelson Nygaard was done prior to the opening of the parking garage. Ms. Puranik responded the study was completed last year, so some of the Crawford Hoying garages were open, but not the City garage in Historic Dublin. Ms. Fox stated that it was not possible to determine the effectiveness of the HD parking garage, as it was not completed at that time. Ms. Fox noted she has questions for Mr. Starr. She would like to hear input about the issues in Bridge Park related to parking -- what are the problems, what are they struggling with, and why is a mobile parking management good for them? Matt Starr, Crawford Hoying responded that, overall, including the garages, they do not have a parking issue currently. However, there is a perceived convenience issue for parking. Today, there were three open spaces at 4:30 p.m. of the 75 available on -street. Clearly, people are parking in these spaces and they are not available to the ground floor business patrons. He can identify resident and employee cars in these spots, and when he finds a Crawford Hoying employee's car in such a space, he immediately contacts them to move it. For him, it is important to have those spaces available. People have a choice to park in the garage for free, but it is important to make these convenient spaces available for those who want to patronize a business. The restaurants have been successful to this point. For the short-term parkers for retail or coffee shops, the ease of access is critical. In terms of measuring success, in their monthly meetings with tenants he will report back on the status of the program. They are very anxious for it to begin, and he will receive direct feedback from them very quickly about the success or failure of the pilot program. In response to Ms. Fox, he noted that about 60 percent of the tenants attend these meetings — sometimes closer to 75 percent. These tenants are engaged in the neighborhood and want to hear what is happening. Ms. Fox stated that one of the reasons for a parking management system was to prevent single -use vehicles from parking in those spaces. The utilization of the curb spaces in Bridge Park for loading, unloading, handicapped, Uber, quick drop-offs seems very limited. In looking at the entire parking and mobility picture, she wants to ensure those curb spaces accommodate a diverse population of customers. She asked him to comment. Mr. Starr stated that from a holistic approach, this also includes the garage parking. In the first phase building they occupy, Crawford Hoying has been there now for two years. The buildings are leased and they observe the behavior patterns and are evaluating how parking can be managed differently. For example, resident parking — even though residents have a reserved space, they may use a space perceived to be more Public Services Committee August 7, 2019 Page 9 convenient. In terms of her question, the loading spaces are only available for windows of time, and those should probably move to be more permanent loading spaces to make those available all the time, given growth of e -retail and food. They also need to do a better job with resident parking. Each resident has a sticker or hang tag, and they need to ensure it is being used. In regard to Uber and Lyfl: patrons, it is somewhat difficult to obtain data — but they believe that about 30 percent of food and beverage and hotel patrons come via these. This will likely continue to grow. Absent a large event, these companies will not utilize a designated pick-up location. They were able to do that for the ForeFest. If there are permanent loading zones designed, Uber and Lyft can use those as pick-up locations. Ms. Fox stated that the mobility study and the mobile parking app are only pieces of the puzzle to ensure an environment is created that allows flexibility in transportation. It is more than collecting data about who is parking in the on -street spaces in front of businesses. This conversation needs to be much larger and include the shuttle stops, loading zones, handicapped spaces, etc. All of this will grow and create an environment for the entire downtown area — from Frantz Road to Historic Dublin to Bridge Park. Mr. Starr noted it is an economic development issue as well. Tomorrow, SHARE is presenting at their meeting regarding last mile service. They want to ensure there is awareness and support for this. There are employees at the AC Marriott using this shuttle, and those jobs are hard to fill. Another hotel is under development. The Park and Ride is a discussion point as well. The different modes of transportation help everyone. Ms. Alutto asked if the parking management pilot will help to answer some of those questions and inform future planning. Mr. Starr responded he does not believe the pilot is long enough to answer all of the other questions. It will be responsive to the behavior changes needed to ensure easy access to businesses, giving people the choice to pay to park closer to a business. Ms. Alutto asked, should the City move ahead with the pilot, what is the plan once it is concluded in nine months? Is the data to be brought back, studied, and a determination made about continuing, changing it, etc.? What are some of the "triggers" that would prompt a rethinking of how the pilot was done and what those changes might be? Ms. Puranik responded that this is definitely a technology experiment as well. It is a given that a long-term parking management program is needed for the District. This is just a start. When we initiated the discussion, we looked at the hardware system/meters. We will know if those are needed or if the technology of connected vehicles and other shared mobility options can be connected. We are also looking at more complete streets and holistic mobility solutions project beginning at the end of 2019 and into 2020. By that time, we will have seen some of the changes of this pilot program and if the technology works or if there is need to go back to a meter system. Ms. Goss added that one of the things the study will help with is to provide a baseline. At this time, the information is not known. The Nelson Nygaard study provides good information, but with garages online now on the east and west sides, it is important to understand how that impacts on -street parking. This data will provide a baseline. It may help to change some behaviors in the meantime and push people to use the garages. Public Services Committee August 7, 2019 Page 10 We will learn what works and what does not and then move forward as policy is established. Ms. Alutto stated that once the pilot is complete, whether tweaks are made in the pilot or not, what is the process for getting that information together, analyzing it, getting it back to Council, having an understanding of what type of policy Council should consider? She asks this because she agrees with Ms. Fox about the street parking aspect on the east side of the river. Convenience is a factor in decisions people make about parking there. She is concerned with not having adequate space in Bridge Park for things like ride sharing — families dropping off people. We could go through this pilot and still wonder if we need to consider more ride -share spaces or more handicap accessible spaces. What is the process beyond the pilot program? Ms. Goss clarified that this is a parking management study that will inform the mobility study and other programs, such as SHARE. Once the data is collected and the behavior is understood and how parking works on the streets, it will help us to set direction for those other programs. That will come before Council for review. Ms. Alutto stated that is an important piece not to lose — this is only part of a bigger umbrella requiring the City's attention. She wants to make sure this is revisited frequently over the next five years as part of the greater policy issue of overall parking and traffic flow management. Ms. Alutto asked how many on -street parking spaces there are on the north side of High Street. She recalls the total was 87 for all of High Street. Ms. Puranik responded that there are 16 spaces on N. High Street. Ms. Alutto suggested that all of those should be either valet or handicap spaces. Everyone going to N. High Street that is able bodied should be parking in the surface lot or in the garage. She does not see the value add if S. High Street is not included. Personally, she thinks having the data from the S. High Street area would be helpful. But she does not understand why the City would include these 16 spaces in this pilot if not including S. High Street. If the decision is made to move forward with the parking pilot, she has concern about not having consulted all of the businesses in the Historic District. She understands not going to them prior to Council direction, but if we do not engage them, how do we know if we are serving them as they desire? Her question is if we decide to move forward with the pilot, can we be specific about keeping the HD in the pilot, contingent upon a majority of the business owners supporting the pilot? Ms. Goss responded that staffs plan was to seek a recommendation from the Committee and then take that recommendation to Council prior to engaging the HD businesses one-on-one. There have been discussions with HDBA and more broadly about the fact that the City is looking at a parking management program. What the scope and mechanics would be has not been shared with the HD businesses, as staff did not know what Council's recommendation would be. Ms. Alutto understands this, and acknowledged it is a "chicken and egg" situation. She is also aware of the challenge of engaging each and every HD businesses. Ms. Goss stated that engagement with each business is the plan, once staff receives approval from Council to move forward with a pilot program. This would be done prior to implementing the pilot. Ms. Alutto noted that, regardless of what the Committee recommends tonight, and whether the HD is included or not, those conversations with the HD businesses need to Public Services Committee August 7, 2019 Page 11 occur. What she does not want is to do only the Bridge Park area pilot and not the Historic District and not communicate that plan to the HD. The information is out there, and word spreads quickly in the small area. She still believes they need to have a voice, whatever their desire. Regardless of the Committee recommendation tonight, this conversation needs to occur with HD businesses. Ms. Goss responded that this is included in the City's communication strategy. Ms. Alutto stated she wants to emphasize that each business owner and operator needs to be aware of these plans. Ms. Goss assured the Committee that she will personally handle this communication. Mr. Reiner noted it may be difficult to know how they feel, as they really do not know. He believes this pilot to gather information should take place on both sides of the river. There were 1,000 potential surface parking areas in the Historic District identified previously, and an attempt was made to work with the landowners — with the City offering to pave the property, landscape it, and light the property so that the private spaces could be used in the off business hours for parking in the District. That effort continued for two years, but in the end it came down to the owners wanting payment to use the parking spaces that were to be improved by the City. In looking at the cost of a parking garage versus surface parking, the cost is huge. Maybe this pilot will prompt landowners to work with the City and resolve this parking issue, avoiding the need to build a future parking garage. Ms. Goss stated that she has had two business owners on S. High Street approach her about being part of the pilot project. They have surface parking they would like to implement with the ParkMobile app. Ms. Alutto stated that for the HD side, the same pilot can be created without requiring payment. If the payment is the issue, the ability for business owners to have vouchers to remove the payment from those parking would be helpful. This discussion took place at the last Committee meeting. Ms. Fox stated that there are "apples and oranges" in this proposed pilot parking program. If the arena is developed, she can see a parking system could be needed and expanded in Bridge Park. She likes the fact that Crawford Hoying has had communication about this with their tenants and they are looking forward to it. On the HD side, this is not the case. She represents HD and has talked to over 20 of them. They have had to endure road closures, construction, and events. The businesses believe a paid parking management system would be detrimental to their businesses. If it becomes burdensome to park by using a smart phone in the HD, patrons will stop coming to the businesses. Because the City has not communicated with the HD businesses as Crawford Hoying has done in Bridge Park, she cannot recommend this -- until every business in the HD signs on to a beta test. ParkMobile is very successful in much larger cities with larger populations and many more parking spaces, where it makes sense. She believes that N. High Street spaces should be drop-off and handicap accessible parking. The drop-off at the front of The Avenue restaurant backs up traffic currently. She wants the beta test to have defined objectives about what we are looking to answer. She wants to see the questions we want to answer, what staff is looking for, and wants to talk about how we can improve drop-off, loading, and handicap accessible Public Services Committee August 7, 2019 Page 12 parking in the Bridge Street District — in conjunction with this beta test. The same thing in the Historic District — we need to understand what we are looking for. Most importantly, if we surprise the HD businesses with a recommendation to move forward and it begins in 60 days, that will be a mistake. She does not see buy -in from these businesses at this point. She needs to know if they will buy in to this pilot. Ms. Alutto stated the question is if the Committee makes a recommendation to Council to move forward with the pilot, can it be made contingent upon certain conditions? Perhaps having staff talk with all of the HD business owners and getting buy -in from them — everyone along that strip. Ms. Fox noted that she understands Mr. Reiner's comments about businesses who have parking spaces available behind their buildings, however, the business owners lease those spaces and do not own them. Ms. Alutto stated that is a good distinction between those who own the spaces and those who lease the spaces. Further discussion about that piece of it would be needed. Mr. McDaniel added clarification about process. On the east side of the river, there is one property owner, and there is on -street parking as well as structured parking. Some of that structured parking is designated for tenants, which is easy to manage. However, on the west side of the river, there is surface parking, on -street parking, private parking, leased parking, and now a parking garage. All of that dynamic makes the west side more challenging. Many surveys have been done over the years about parking. This is a technology app intended to survey and understand parking. In the past, the surveys have been snapshots — but technology will now allow the information to be gathered over a longer period of time. In terms of process and engaging the businesses, this is Council's directed process regarding the parking management -- the issue was referred to Public Services Committee for review. Staff did not engage the HD businesses because they did not want to get ahead of the Committee and Council's review. It was mentioned to HDBA and others that this was in process, and when they heard the pilot would begin with the east side and not include the west, they indicated at a fairly well attended meeting that they wanted to be included. For that reason, the west side was included in the proposed pilot. At this point, they apparently do not want to be included, based on tonight's discussion. Staff wanted Council's direction before engaging the HD businesses. His suggestion is that the Committee bring forward a recommendation to Council to move forward with the east side pilot with certain caveats as discussed; and that in terms of the HD, an engagement process is to take place before moving forward. Staff will survey to the extent possible and he hopes that Council will accept what is heard from staff in terms of the feedback. Ms. Fox noted that as a representative of the Ward, her responsibility is to understand what citizens and businesses desire. She talks with them on a regular basis. Mr. McDaniel suggested that if the Committee wants staff to engage the HD businesses by surveying or face-to-face interviews, he needs to have that direction. Staff can report back on that. Then, with the Committee's recommendation and approval by Council, the program could begin on the east side of the river. It is all a process. Public Services Committee August 7, 2019 Page 13 Ms. Fox stated there are many positives that will result with this information gathering toward solving parking problems. What she wants to see is a clearly defined objective on what we want to answer. Along with that, we need to have a holistic approach that is not limited to where someone is parking, but also the use of the curb space in front of the businesses and the best way it can be utilized. In addition, to ensure we have an ongoing conversation about loading space, handicap parking, mobility, ride share, liber, Lyft, etc. so that as it comes online, there is not a need to revisit this topic. These kinds of questions will hopefully be answered by the use of this technology -- what is the measure of success, what will we do with the information and where do we hope to go with it? For the Historic District, there will be some controversy and more than a phone call is needed — a complete explanation of the program, an illustration of how it would work, and providing each business owner with the opportunity to answer a set of questions about their input. At the end of the beta test, they should have the opportunity to weigh in one more time. She believes the parking management program will be detrimental in the Historic District. We need to be focused on giving the HD businesses the same opportunity to learn about the pilot as the east side businesses have had through Crawford Hoying's outreach. Ms. Alutto cautioned in terms of the holistic picture -- this piece is simply the parking management portion. However, Ms. Fox is correct in that the program must be taken into consideration as part of the bigger picture. We will likely not have those bigger picture answers based on this individual beta test. She wants to clarify this. Ms. Fox noted that if the Committee approves moving forward with the pilot on the east side, in conjunction with that we need to articulate what the objectives are, what we hope to do, and that the conversation will continue on the best use of the curbside. It cannot simply be undertaking the pilot and collecting data. She wants a larger, broader answer. She would not be supportive of ParkMobile going forward in the Historic District until these other things were done and the answers brought back. Only then would she be able to decide on the west side pilot. Ms. Alutto noted that she believes all agree on this approach. Mr. Reiner stated that the consensus appears to be moving forward with the east side in order to understand the current situation. For the west side, staff should engage the businesses and obtain their feedback. Since a large portion of that area is controlled by a small number of people, it would be helpful to engage not only the business owners, but the owners of the buildings. This would provide a better overview. This could be a positive step in the right direction to resolve parking issues, which have been under discussion for over 20 years. Ms. Fox clarified that she is not supportive of the ParkMobile parking management in the Historic District. Most importantly, it is important to have a list of questions so that everyone hears the same information and understands the app. The business owners as well as the building/property owners need to be engaged. Ms. Alutto stated there is need to conclude this discussion and give staff appropriate direction so that the Committee's report can be provided to the full Council. Public Services Committee August 7, 2019 Page 14 She summarized the direction needed at this point: 1. Decriminalizing parking violations. (Page 9 of memo) There has not been discussion about this. Does the Committee object to this, or should this be part of the recommendation to Council? Ms. O'Callaghan clarified that staff is not looking for direction on those recommendations tonight — those are long-term considerations to review throughout the duration of the pilot. The objectives at this point are to receive direction from the Committee, and then Council on the pilot program itself. Ms. Alutto stated that the Committee has no objection to initiating the pilot on the east side of the river, provided that is done within the context of the overall traffic and parking study and that we are explicit about that. For the HD portion, before a recommendation can be made to move forward or not to do so, the business and landowner discussion needs to occur. The questions to be asked, what this pilot project entails, and obtaining their support or non-support of a pilot program — and having that information brought back is critical. If the buy -in is overwhelmingly positive, then we should move forward with the HD pilot. If the businesses are overwhelmingly opposed, we should not move forward. All of this needs to take place before a decision is made about the HD pilot program. Mr. Reiner asked if this is the recommendation for the Committee to vote upon. Ms. Alutto responded she is trying to articulate a recommendation for Council, based on tonight's discussion. Ms. Goss asked if it would be acceptable if staff drafts a set of questions for Council's review and approval as part of the communication strategy, which includes door-to-door outreach, face-to-face interaction, etc. This would be included as part of that strategy. Ms. Alutto added that staff needs to identify a method of clearly recording each respondent's answers to determine if they want or do not want the pilot program to move forward. If the presentation and questions are consistent, and the responses are recorded, this will help move the process forward in whatever way desired. Ms. Goss stated if she is personally conducting the outreach, there will be a consistent approach. She will be accompanied by a staff member who can record the input. Ms. Alutto stated that this is related to the other concern expressed tonight — what is the end objective of the pilot. That should be addressed in the narrative presented to the HD business and property owners. All of this should provide Council with the information needed about whether or not to move forward on the HD pilot. Ms. Fox added that, in the recommendation to Council for the Bridge Park pilot, clear objectives need to be identified: what we hope to collect, what we hope to do with it, what we are going to do with it, and how private it is. There needs to be some criteria — it is not simply about a mobile parking app. We need to understand the measures of success. For her, improving curbside mobility in Bridge Park would be an important objective. Public Services Committee August 7, 2019 Page 15 Mr. Reiner commented that it is likely that the barber in Historic Dublin may not be supportive of parking management, due to its impact on employees and customers. Ms. Goss commented that one business owner who was a naysayer from the outset has indicated that if he has to pay only $.50 per hour to reserve space in front of his building, he would welcome that opportunity. Ms. Fox pointed out there is no handicap accessible parking spaces along High Street. Ms. Alutto stated that needs to be reviewed. There may be input from business owners about that aspect as well. Ms. Alutto asked if staff has adequate direction Ms. O'Callaghan offered clarification about Historic Dublin and the private lots. Regardless of the discussion tonight or the Committee's recommendation, those private lot owners could currently sign on with ParkMobile and add their private lot to the app. That can occur without City approval or notification. The City's role was to facilitate or encourage that, if desired. Ms. Alutto stated if that occurs, it is a matter between the property owner and tenant to renegotiate their lease contract regarding parking. Ms. O'Callaghan noted that Mr. Boggs has arrived and is available to respond to questions about public records and privacy issues. Ms. Fox stated she is interested in knowing what information collected in this pilot is public information, and how people can access it if they choose to do so. Mr. Boggs responded that in terms of Personally Identifiable Information (PII), all resides with the ParkMobile app and not with the City. But as is the case now, if someone receives a traffic ticket in the City, the location, date, time and name of vehicle owner — when the officer runs it through the LEADS program. Under this system, there would not be a LEADS search as with police enforcement, but it would be coordinated with the app. The information compiled into a record would be similar to that for a traffic ticket, but the enforcement person would not be accessing an entire driving record to obtain that information. In terms of what a citizen could do to obtain that information, they could request a ticket. That ticket would likely be a public record, but perhaps not all components of it. Driver's license numbers are typically redacted from public records prior to release as are social security numbers. There is not generally a duty of a public office to create a record in response to a public records request. Therefore, for example, a request about where a license plate has been parked over some months of time would not trigger any obligation for the City to prepare and provide that information. It is a request for information — not a request for a record the City maintains. As more of these apps are developed, the law continues to develop — but at this point, we would look to general principles. Ms. Fox asked for clarification — what information will ParkMobile provide to the City? Mr. Holler responded that, basically, it will be transaction data. If someone receives a ticket, they can provide their paid transaction via a screen shot and staff could look up a Public Services Committee August 7, 2019 Page 16 paid transaction for that plate in that zone. Only the plate and the time of that transaction is shown. Ms. Fox stated that a vehicle license plate reader will know who paid and who did not pay, as will the City, as well as what period of time the vehicle was in the parking space. Mr. Holler stated that the tracking is by vehicle plate and in what zone in Dublin. Ms. Fox added that for the 16 spaces in the N. High Street of Historic Dublin, this is unnecessary due to the capacity issues. Mr. Boggs added that as the City begins data collection in the Smart City context, legal staff is researching the public records law aspect of this to stay ahead of the curve. Legal staff will continue to monitor that. Ms. Alutto summarized the direction of the Committee: 1. Move forward with the pilot for the east side of the river, with the caveat of keeping that under the umbrella of the larger picture of all of the items articulated in tonight's discussion, including well defined objectives. 2. For the westside (clarification added for the record) of the river, staff to undertake a personal outreach to the business owners and landowners with details of the pilot program, i.e. this is what we are doing, what this means to them, using questions that are repeatable ones -- and that the answers are recorded in some manner before any decision is made about whether to move forward or not to move forward on the west side (HD) of the river. Ms. Alutto moved to make this recommendation to Council. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes, Mr. Holler noted that he appreciates the opportunity to participate in this process. He thanked staff, the City and Council for this engagement. Mr. Reiner asked Mr. Starr the target date for opening of the North Market at Bridge Park. Mr. Starr responded it is April 1, 2020. There were 69 initial applicants for 21 spots. Mr. Reiner asked if there is a possibility of expansion. Mr. Starr responded affirmatively. Signage will be reviewed by PZC in October. Shared -Use Path - Snow Clearing -Priority Mr. Earman stated that this item was referred to the Committee for review at the retreat. The shared -use paths are cleared to a certain extent; the priorities for clearing of these continue to evolve as new schools and new development come on line. Over time, the number of shared -use paths that are cleared has grown. Jay Anderson, Parks Operations Director and Chris Nicol, Parks Operations Administrator are present to share information regarding the program. Mr. Anderson stated that there are two shifts, am. and p.m. First shift is 8 employees, one of whom is a supervisor. Second shift is six employees, one of whom is a supervisor. There are three bike path routes, two building routes, one parking lot route Public Services Committee August 7, 2019 Page 17 and one Historic Dublin route for clearing with every snow event — a total of just under 40 miles. He noted the following responsibilities: • All City building sidewalks and parking lots • Historic Dublin City -owned property frontage and City parking lots within the Historic District • John Shields Parkway • Bikepaths accessing Dublin Schools and the Hilliard elementary school within Dublin's boundaries • Bikepaths in select parks for recreation usage (larger parks --Avery, Darree, Indian Run) • All sidewalks that border City property In terms of metrics, there ae 27.2 miles of bikepath; 11 miles of sidewalk; 1.5 miles related to City buildings for a total of 39.7 miles of clearing per snow event. He shared an interactive app with an overview of the snow clearing done by Parks. He offered to respond to questions. Ms. Alutto asked for the estimated additional mileage to be handled due to new schools and the new City Hall coming online. Mr. Anderson stated that they already take care of the new City Hall building as it is owned by the City. The new elementary school is not factored in yet, but it will not add a significant burden. Ms. Alutto asked how the priority is determined. Mr. Anderson responded that, depending on the severity of the snow event, the Parks staff is sometimes diverted to the Streets operation for the public roadways. In terms of the priority for Parks responsibilities, the City buildings and parking lots are the main priorities. From there, they move on to bikepaths and sidewalks on City property. Bikepaths tend to be a second priority, but the work on City building sidewalks, City building parking lots and bikepaths goes on simultaneously during a snow event. Mr. Reiner asked if the City clears snow for bikepaths leading to schools, Mr. Anderson responded the City does quite a bit of this work. For example, along Muirfield Drive, the paths are cleared to access Scottish Corners. In general, the City clears much of the outer edges of paths that go to schools. Mr. Reiner stated he is disappointed that so few students ride bikes to school. More often, they are bused or dropped off. He is interested in knowing how many students use the paths during these winter months as it is expensive to keep the paths clear of snow if the paths are not being used. The bike racks are seldom full. In such a safe City, he is surprised that more students do not bike to school. This goes back to a cost issue - - to remove snow when no one is using the path. Has a study been done of the usage to warrant snow removal? Mr. Anderson responded that a study has not been done. He agrees that the students do not use the paths during inclement weather, but the residents do. The residents have grown accustomed over the years to the service levels the City provides. In past years, ingress and egress to schools was cited as a justification for clearing these paths. Public Services Committee August 7, 2019 Page 18 Ms. Fox commented that at Sells and Indian Run, students are discouraged from riding their bikes to school due to all of the bus and car interaction. This is unfortunate, since the City is trying to create a walkable environment. This is a topic for a separate discussion. The City purchased right-of-way to install bikepaths along Dublin Road and S. High Street in recent years. Some of the neighbors assumed the City would clear that bikepath as it would not be a resident responsibility to clear it. Secondly, on the major bikepaths along thoroughfares — especially those leading to the downtown area — there are segments not being cleared that are in front of private property. When Dublin Road bikepath was constructed, everyone used it to walk downtown. But in the winter, only part of it was cleared of snow. On the west side of High, the area in front of the library was cleared by the City, but on the east side of N. High, it was not cleared. What kind of priorities should the City have on the major thoroughfares for the more traveled areas of the City? Mr. Anderson responded that with Council's feedback last year, Dublin Road south to Tuttle is now one of the paths included for snow removal. This ties into the school on Tuttle. Ms. Fox asked about the N. High Street area. It is cleared on the west side, but not on the east side. Why is that? Mr. Anderson responded that the east side is private business owner responsibility. On the west side, it is City bikepath and for this reason it is cleared by the City. Ms. Fox asked about Mezzo, Jeni"s and connecting to Waterford. Is this cleared by the City or is this private? It is not a path, it is brick. How is that handled? Mr. Anderson responded that staff considers the sidewalk in front of Jeni's and on down S. High Street as private property owner responsibility to maintain. City Code applies to the sidewalk in terms of keeping it clear of snow and ice; it does not apply to bikepath, and there is no requirement per Code for the City to clear bikepaths of snow. Ms. Fox stated that perhaps a postcard to a resident or business to let them know of their responsibility for snow removal would be helpful. If that is not effective, she believes the City needs to step in and clear them, since the majority of the rest of the path/sidewalk is cleared by the City. Mr. Reiner stated that he believes the private businesses and property owners should clear their sidewalks. There is also a liability issue if the City assumes responsibility for clearing their sidewalks. Mr. Anderson stated he believes that is correct, but would need to check. Mr. Reiner reiterated that a business owner should take care of their own property. Ms. Alutto stated she supports a courtesy communication to the property owners in order to be as collaborative as possible. This may not completely address the issue, but would be helpful. Ms. Fox stated that the City clears John Shields Parkway — is that a bikepath or sidewalk? This is where the confusion occurs. If we clear Bridge Park sidewalks, we should clear Historic Dublin business sidewalks. Mr. Earman added that the City is trying to implement a pedestrian -friendly environment and the future greenway development along John Shields Parkway east and west along with Tuller Flats includes parkland and therefore is more unique. Ms. Fox stated that both sides of the river should be pedestrian friendly environments. There should be an effort to ensure clearing of the sidewalks — providing a Public Services Committee August 7, 2019 Page 19 communication to the property/business owners, or a decision by the City to include clearing of that route through downtown. Mr. Earman stated that staff supports a communication effort as suggested. Ms. Fox asked, given the upcoming operating budget review, if there are areas staff would like to see cleared or for which residents have requested clearing? She is aware there is a section near the school in Ballantrae and a park for which residents have requested clearing of snow. Has staff heard from residents about their desires? What would staff like to see included in the snow clearing that staffing is not currently adequate to handle? Mr. Anderson responded that staff does receive inquiries from residents about snow clearing and doing more. Given the staff and equipment today, staff believes the City is in a good position and does more than any neighboring community in this regard. After staff has been on snow shift for many hours, there is need for breaks and rest prior to the next snow event. There is wear and tear on equipment to consider, and it is also important to have well rested staff operating the equipment. The balance at this time is manageable. With more equipment and staff, more work could obviously be done, but staff is satisfied with the level of service being provided, Certainly Council can direct more resources to this operation, if they believe a need exists. Mr. Earman added that when decisions are made on what is cleared and not cleared and what priorities are in place, there are criteria considered. He believes this is a good strategy and enables consistent service levels. Once staff deviates from this, a precedent is set and the operation may become unmanageable. Ms. Alutto asked if a priority algorithm is available for this — criteria and things used to determine top priorities. Mr. Earman responded the priorities are, as indicated earlier, the City buildings; school ingress and egress, based on previous City policy; bikepaths for recreational usage in the winter months; and paths that border City property. This is the essence of how the City operates. Mr. Reiner noted that the City is, in essence, the landowner for many of these and is responsible to clear its property. This is the same responsibility as for any property owner. Ms. Fox stated that for her, the priorities for snow clearing of paths/sidewalks would be for the well -travelled roads where pedestrian walkability is being encouraged. Bridge Park Avenue appears to be cleared by the City, according to the map. Is the sidewalk cleared by the City on W. Bridge Street? Mr. Anderson responded that the City clears the sidewalk in front of the cemetery, but not in front of private properties. The Schools clear in front of their property on W. Bridge Street. (He pointed out on the map the other paths cleared in this general area.) Ms. Fox stated that the goal of the City is clearing for walkability during snow events. The City may need to send postcards to owners of portions of path or sidewalk that are consistently not being cleared. The City is clearing a good portion of the areas, and the private property owners need to be taking care of their portions. Ms. Alutto agreed. Public Services Committee August 7, 2019 Page 20 Ms. Fox stated that a concerted effort of communication and enforcement is needed — not ticketing or fines, but just reminders or asking if the property owner needs assistance in clearing their sidewalk. It would be great for the City to make every effort to have the pedestrian ways open for use in the winter. Ms. Alutto stated she supports a communication effort to these property owners. Ms. Alutto summarized that the Committee endorses a communication plan to the private property owners about clearing their sidewalks. The meeting was adjourned at 7:56 p.m. 15-ety Clerfof touncil-