Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airport Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Airport staff recommend new parking access system, estimate up to $300K with cameras
Summary
Airport staff recommended a replacement parking access and revenue control system and recommended DGM/Amano after an RFP process; staff estimated $253,000 for core equipment plus up to $62,500 for license‑plate‑reading cameras and monthly service fees.
Airport staff presented an update on the parking access and revenue control system at the Idaho Falls Regional Airport and recommended council consider awarding a contract to DGM/AMANO after a competitive RFP process.
The airport director and staff said the existing equipment is about 20 years old and failing; staff outlined a process that began with a November RFP, a vendor walkthrough, 11 proposals received in December, and recent final interviews that narrowed the field to two finalists: Flash and Amano (DGM). “Our equipment is ancient. It's 20 years. It's well past its useful life,” the airport presenter said, explaining the need for replacement.
Recommendation and costs: staff recommended DGM/Amano as the best fit for the airport’s operational needs. The recommendation listed equipment costs of approximately $253,000 for the base system, plus approximately $6,250 per license‑plate‑reader (LPR) camera; staff said the proposal supports up to 10 lanes if site geometry permits. Allowing for 10 LPR cameras would add about $62,500 and push the total above $300,000. Staff also reported expected monthly service/SaaS fees of just over $1,700 (final amount depends on add‑on services chosen).
Functionality considered: staff compared the two finalists on cloud functionality, customization, parts procurement, camera options and user portal usability. Flash offers more third‑party equipment flexibility and an in‑house LPR system, while Amano/DGM offers a long‑standing local service relationship and an equipment roadmap staff called “future proof” through vendor upgrades. Staff noted tradeoffs: Flash’s ticket roll capacity and web portal were weaker in the demonstrations; Amano’s parts must be purchased through the vendor rather than third parties.
User options: both finalists support multiple entry and payment methods (ticket, QR/mobile pay, credit card, license plate entry and apps). Staff said adding LPR improves speed for repeat users, helps customers who lose tickets, and enables employee plate lists for lot access; staff also flagged mobile‑pay integration and bilingual call‑center options as possible add‑ons.
Timeline and next steps: staff said, pending council approval at an upcoming regular meeting (staff indicated the contract would be on the Thursday council agenda), the airport expects equipment to be installed and operational prior to May 15. Council members asked questions about lane widths, snow‑plow and large‑vehicle access, dynamic pricing options and whether installation will require surface improvements in the lot; staff said entrance lanes will be improved but that a larger resurfacing is a separate capital project.
Staff recommended DGM/Amano be placed on the council agenda for formal award; city staff cautioned the final cost depends on camera counts and add‑on services.
