Shorewood committee authorizes RFP to study digital metered parking in business district

The Shorewood Business & Finance Committee voted to commission a request for proposals to solicit digital metered-parking systems for the village business district and nearby public lots, approving the motion 3-0 at a committee meeting.

The committee’s move follows a presentation by Nicholas, a Shorewood resident with long experience in parking systems, who urged the village to favor digital, managed parking over new physical meter infrastructure. “Physical meter infrastructure for a town like Shorewood, doesn't make sense to me as a professional,” Nicholas said, and added that parking today is “really more about managed parking.”

The committee’s action directs staff to draft an RFP that will solicit proposals for digital parking solutions covering Oakland and Capitol drives and adjacent streets, village-owned lots, and roadways near Atwater Beach during peak summer months, and to include Edgewood in the scope. The motion was made and seconded on the record and passed by a 3-0 voice vote.

Why it matters: Committee members framed the study as both a curb-management tool and a potential revenue source for the village. Committee members referenced a rough revenue estimate discussed during the meeting: “I think it gives us a path forward to pursue it farther and see if we can make it work for us to provide a quarter of a million dollars of revenue annually,” said Rebecca, a committee member. Those figures, the committee said, will be tested and refined in the RFP responses.

What presenters told the committee: Nicholas told members that modern digital parking systems allow multiple consumer-facing payment apps to accept payment for the same zone and report back to a single “system of record,” allowing Shorewood to change enforcement hours, rates and zone attributes without replacing hardware. He described operational options such as plate-based resident registration (for limited free hours), time limits, graduated hourly pricing, license‑plate enforcement with license-plate readers, and ticket-by-mail or automated billing tied to an account.

Nicholas said digital programs reduce up-front capital costs associated with single-space or multi-space physical meters and give the village more flexibility to change enforcement parameters over time. He also highlighted industry trends: widely used vendors include ParkMobile and Passport, and digital platforms increasingly support multiple consumer apps and integrated enforcement workflows.

Committee discussion and caveats: Trustees and staff raised questions about enforcement workload, costs for community service officers, and public acceptance. Committee members repeatedly said they expected the RFP to include analysis of operational impacts and enforcement needs and asked that any firm’s proposal be coordinated with the police chief for verification of operational assumptions. One committee member noted the village historically issued roughly 15,000 citations a year and that digitization could change the enforcement volume; a presenter estimated the number of citations might be materially different under new systems (an estimate of about 8,000 was discussed but not finalized).

Members also discussed mitigation measures for “parking creep” (spillover into residential blocks), resident plate registration for limited free hours, and business incentives such as loyalty coupons tied to parking apps. The committee discussed communication: staff said it will prepare an outreach plan for the RFP and recommended broader public engagement later, after proposals come in, so the village and trustees can see specific options before a deployment decision.

What the RFP will ask for: Committee members directed staff to include the following in the RFP scope: descriptions of vendor pricing models (including convenience fees and any recurring fees), projected net revenue scenarios under different rate/coverage options, enforcement workflow and staffing impacts, implementation timeline, signage and equipment obligations, and options for resident exemptions or registration. The initial geographic scope listed in committee discussion included Oakland and Capitol drives, adjacent streets in the business district, village-owned lots, and Lake Drive/Atwater Beach seasonal enforcement.

Vote and next steps: The RFP motion passed by voice vote, recorded as 3 in favor, none opposed. Staff will draft the RFP and return to the committee and full board for review; committee members said any later decision to deploy meters would require further board approval and public engagement.

The meeting also included discussion of a prior Walker parking study and local occupancy figures raised during the presentation; committee members said the new RFP responses should reconcile those earlier study numbers with prospective vendor forecasts.

A copy of the committee motion and the RFP timeline will be prepared for the board; staff said deployment, if approved, would likely not occur before January of the following year.