Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parking Payments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
College Park council OKs ParkMobile as secondary pay‑by‑phone option, approves service agreement
Summary
The council authorized the city manager to enter a service agreement with ParkMobile, LLC as a secondary mobile payment vendor for city parking, a move supporters said would reduce confusion for drivers while some councilmembers raised concerns about added Merchant‑of‑Record fees and lower municipal revenue.
The College Park City Council authorized the city manager on May 13 to enter a service agreement with ParkMobile, LLC as a secondary mobile pay‑by‑phone provider for city parking operations.
Parking Enforcement Manager Miller presented the item (agenda 25GS51), describing the proposal as an option to add ParkMobile in addition to the city’s current provider, Ames/AMP Park. Miller told the council the city’s 2024 mobile app transactions totaled 58,079 and that shifting all mobile payments to ParkMobile would add a 3% Merchant‑of‑Record (MOR) fee in addition to the typical $0.20 per transaction processing fee the city pays today.
Miller said a full hypothetical shift to ParkMobile would add roughly $16,428 in MOR fees to the city’s gross meter revenue ($547,601.17 in total meter collections referenced from the State of the City report). He also said the university and many regional entities use ParkMobile and that adding ParkMobile could reduce user confusion at campus and shopping center locations.
During council discussion, some members emphasized accessibility for users who regularly use ParkMobile and the benefit of giving residents more payment options. Councilmember Ranker, Councilmember Whitney and others said ParkMobile’s familiarity would improve the parking experience for residents, particularly visitors and university users.
Councilmember Durango (opposed) said he has had negative experiences with the ParkMobile service and objected to the MOR that would reduce net revenue to the city. The council debated whether the additional fee structure could be altered in negotiation with ParkMobile; staff said legal review and negotiation would be part of the agreement process.
Gavin Neubauer, a resident who spoke at the council meeting, described practical user benefits: “There have been a couple issues I’ve had with it, mostly when it comes to how it works in the shopping center... ParkMobile would work a lot better. It’ll tell you your time on your home screen which AMP does not do,” he said.
The motion to authorize the agreement — described in the meeting as approval for the city manager to enter into a service agreement subject to city attorney review — passed 7‑1 with one opposing vote recorded. The approved authorization directs staff to finalize a contract with ParkMobile subject to legal review and return any material changes to the council as required.
Clarifying details the council recorded in the discussion included: ParkMobile’s 3% MOR fee, the city’s $0.20 per‑transaction processing charge, the 58,079 mobile transactions processed through the city’s current vendor in 2024, and AMP’s prior role filling the gap when MobileNow ceased operations during the pandemic.
