Shorewood committee approves RFP for digital parking pilot, citing possible $250,000 in annual revenue

The Shorewood Business & Finance Committee voted 3-0 on Oct. 12 to commission a request for proposals to solicit bids for a digital metered parking system covering the village business district, specified roads and village lots, and roadways near Atwater Beach during summer months.

The vote follows a presentation by a Shorewood resident and parking industry professional, identified in the meeting only as Mr. Nicholas, who urged the village to favor an app-based, managed-parking approach over installing physical parking meters. “Physical meter infrastructure for a town like Shorewood doesn't make sense to me as a professional,” Mr. Nicholas told the committee, adding that digital systems provide “a lot of flexibility” to change hours, rates and permit rules without large capital investments.

Committee members and staff debated the practical implications and enforcement demands of a digital system and asked that proposals include operational impacts. Committee member Rebecca (staff member) said she would include a range of locations in the RFP — Oakland, Capitol, Edgewood and adjacent streets, village-owned lots, and seasonally metered areas on Lake Drive near Atwater Beach — and that the full board would later weigh any final implementation decision.

Why it matters: the village is pursuing alternative revenues amid budgetary pressure. A committee member said the concept could provide about a quarter-million dollars in annual revenue if implemented at scale; the committee approved issuing an RFP so the village can evaluate vendor options, revenue forecasts and operational impacts before any installation or policy decision.

Key points from the meeting

- Scope and motion: The committee approved an RFP that will solicit proposals for a digital-managed parking system in the business district, adjacent blocks, village-owned lots and seasonal parking near the beach. The motion, made and seconded at the meeting, passed 3-0. The committee did not finalize which specific block faces would be implemented; staff said the RFP would include a broad set of areas that the board could narrow later.

- Revenue and models: Participants discussed vendor business models (convenience fees and vendor-added charges) and sample revenue estimates. One committee member summarized an internal estimate that digital parking could generate roughly $250,000 in annual revenue under some scenarios, but members emphasized that the RFP should require vendors to provide revenue forecasting under multiple rate and coverage scenarios.

- Technology and enforcement: Mr. Nicholas and trustees reviewed features common in modern digital parking systems: multiple third-party mobile payment providers (ParkMobile and Passport were discussed), a central “system of record” for zones and rates, license-plate registration for resident exemptions or free-hour allowances, license-plate readers for enforcement and options for mailed citations or automated billing. Mr. Nicholas said cities are moving toward mailed citations and automated credit-card billing to reduce on-street enforcement costs and friction.

- Operational concerns: Committee members requested that the RFP require vendors to analyze enforcement workload and coordinate closely with the police chief or public-safety leadership. Staff noted that community service officers currently handle parking enforcement and that any new system would affect their workload.

- Public engagement and communications: Trustees said the village should plan public outreach once proposals provide concrete options. Staff said she would work with business and community relations on messaging and suggested a public forum after the RFP returns to the board with options.

What the motion did and did not do

- Commissioning the RFP: The committee authorized staff to prepare and release an RFP to solicit proposals for a digital parking management system, including vendor proposals that must address cost, enforcement impacts, implementation timeline and revenue forecasts.

- No policy changes or installations were approved: The committee did not adopt rates, set enforcement rules, or approve any vendor contract. Staff and trustees said any installation or ordinance change would require separate board review and a public process.

Quotes

“Physical meter infrastructure for a town like Shorewood doesn't make sense to me as a professional,” — Mr. Nicholas, Shorewood resident and parking professional.

“You’d want the firm to put enforcement and staffing impacts within the scope of the analysis, and to verify those with our police chief,” — Rebecca, staff member, on RFP requirements.

Next steps and timeline

Staff will draft the RFP to include the committee’s geographic scope and the list of technical, operational and financial analyses discussed. Trustees said they expect the RFP responses to inform a later decision; staff estimated that, if the board chose to move ahead with installation, an implementation would not occur before January 2026. The full Village Board will review any contract or ordinance changes before implementation.